Clarisse Thorn

I write and speak about subcultures, sexuality, and new media.

The article below was originally published on October 1, 2010 by AlterNet; the AlterNet editors titled it “Why Do We Demonize Men Who Are Honest About Their Sexual Needs?” I have no idea how many people linked to it, but it caused enough of a stir that I got hate mail from a man on the very same day it appeared, and also some of my sister feminist bloggers became upset. I have linked to my favorite responses around the blogosphere at the end of this post. I’ve also included some minor edits in this version of the article, for the sake of clarity.

* * *

This is an article about men, but I’m going to begin by talking about women’s experiences. Many of us women go through our daily lives fending off unwanted male attention; most of us have worried about being attacked by men. So it’s completely understandable that we’re all on high alert for predatory expressions of male sexuality.

But, while certain situations and certain people deserve our disdain — like, say, the guy who once leered at me as I walked out of the public library and whispered, "I can smell your pussy" — most guys really don’t. The pressure put on men to be initiators, yet avoid seeming creepy or aggressive, leads to an unpleasant double bind. After all, the same gross cultural pressures that make women into objects force men into instigators; how many women do you know who proposed to their husbands?

So how can a man express his sexual needs without being tarred as a creep? After all, the point of promoting sex-positive attitudes is for everyone to be able to be open about their needs and desires, right?

When I was 23 years old, I was still coming to terms with my S&M orientation, and so I posted to an Internet message board about how "illicit" desire was messing up my life. Soon, I received an email from a guy in my area. He accurately guessed the cause of my anxieties: “If I had to guess as to your kinks, I’d guess that either you want some BDSM play, or you maybe want to add other partners into a relationship. How close am I?” He then offered to fulfill all my wicked, dirty lusts. In fairness, the guy actually referred to himself as creepy during our text-only conversation — but I still feel guilty that when I told the story to my friends, we all referred to him as "the creep."

I obviously had every right to turn down my Internet Lothario. Still, I shouldn’t have called him a creep; all he was doing was being overt and honest about his desires, and he did it in a polite — though straightforward — way. If he’d emailed me with "Hey bitch, you obviously want me to come over and dominate you," then that would have been impolite and unpleasant. But he emailed me a quick and amusing introduction, then asked what I wanted. After a few rounds of banter, I called a halt, and he respected that.

I think the word "creep" is too vague and prejudiced to mean anything anymore. But if I were willing to use the word, I’d say my Internet suitor was the opposite of a creep.

* * *

Although I’ve become more aware of it recently, I think I’ve always had the sense that men are particularly vulnerable to the judgment of “creep." Over a year ago, I wrote a series of blog posts on the problems of masculinity, and in Part 3 I noted that — unlike men — "I can be explicit and overt about my sexuality without being viewed as a creep."

Of course, I could be labeled a slut, which could damage me quite badly. There’s a reason I do all my most explicit writing under a pseudonym. We feminists often say that men’s promiscuity is lauded while women’s is stigmatized, and one point of this argument is purely linguistic: "stud" is a complimentary word for a promiscuous man, while "slut" is a hurtful word for a promiscuous woman. Besides, our culture hates sex, no matter who’s doin’ it — even vanilla, consensual, heterosexual, private sex between cute white married adults is hard for some folks to acknowledge!

But in fact, men aren’t merely enabled to be promiscuous — they’re pressured to be getting laid all the time. This influences situations ranging from huge communities devoted entirely to teaching men how to pick up women, to tragically callous dismissal of the experiences of men who have been raped.

And while there’s immense cultural repression of all sexuality, there’s also a fair and growing amount of modern TV, movies and feminist energy that seek to enable female sluttitude in all its harmless, glorious forms. The stud vs. slut dichotomy is worth discussing, but it has one flaw: it entirely ignores the word "creep," whose function appears to be restricting male sexuality to a limited, contradictory set of behaviors.

Feminist blogger Thomas Millar writes, "The common understanding of male sexuality is a stereotype, an ultra-narrow group of desires and activities oriented around penis-in-vagina sex, anal intercourse and blowjobs; oriented around cissexual [i.e., non-trans] women partners having certain very narrow groups of physical characteristics.” Men are supposed to be insatiable only within those bounds. Men who step outside them — for example, heterosexual men who are attracted to curvier women, or who like being pegged with a dildo in the butt — are either mocked or viewed with anxious suspicion.

Worse, men who talk a lot about their sexuality, or who make any slightly unusual move (like sending a friendly proposition over the Internet), can run afoul of the pervasive tropes around male sexuality: that it’s inherently aggressive, toxic and unwanted.

Under these circumstances, mere semi-explicit conversations become fraught territory. A male, S&M-oriented friend of mine told me about a girl he once spoke to while volunteering at a large feminist organization. She started a conversation about how she was coming to terms with her queer identity; she no longer wanted to have sex with men, but with women. He said he could relate, and described his feelings about coming into his S&M identity. The next day, he got a call from the intern coordinator telling him to get back in the closet. "Turns out what I thought was discussing who I was, came across as hinting that she should participate," says my friend. "The thought never crossed my mind — she was, after all, telling me that she didn’t want to have sex with men. But the cultural constructs around the conversation intervened between what I was saying and what she was hearing."

As one masculinity thread commenter named Tim observes: "The only way for a guy to guarantee that he won’t be called ‘creepy’ is to suppress entirely his sexuality, just like a woman can escape being called a slut by suppressing hers."

Another commenter, Sam, notes that it’s often difficult for men to "realize that being sexually confident and assertive is not tied to politics," and that some men feel so much anxiety they hire experts to coach them through the terrifying process of merely asking a strange woman where to find Internet access.

Even worse, as commenter machina says: “Simply having sex with women is seen as exploitative.” As a woman, particularly one who identifies primarily as an S&M submissive, I’ve had to overcome this problem from the opposite direction. For example, I’ve fought down fears that I couldn’t be independent or feminist and still enjoy S&M, or that I couldn’t enjoy any sex outside a narrowly defined “committed relationship” without sacrificing my self-respect. The flip side of those examples is that many heterosexual male dominants worry that they can’t value women’s independence and enjoy S&M; that many men worry they can’t have sex outside a relationship while valuing a female partner’s self-respect.

These anti-male stereotypes have an incredibly broad effect, and not just among individuals. Calls to censor porn, for example, are influenced not only by extreme claims that porn access increases rape (it doesn’t) but by feelings that mainstream porn expresses an unacceptable form of male sexuality.

It’s certainly true that the kind of sex represented in mainstream porn isn’t for everybody, which is why there are lots of other kinds of porn out there (including feminist porn!). However, I’m reluctant to condemn any kind of consensual sex in itself, including consensual sex as represented in mainstream porn. Plus, as commenter iamcuriousblue explains, many condemnations of mainstream porn incorporate a "view of masculinity itself as inherently hostile and dangerous" and a tacit claim that male sexuality "needs to be kept on a short leash, where men’s viewing of violent or pornographic media is restricted, either through community pressure or state action, lest the dumb beast of a man get the wrong ideas."

If we’re worried about people learning the wrong things from mainstream porn, then we should be giving everyone unflinchingly detailed sex education so that everyone understands just how limited mainstream porn is. Men aren’t dumb beasts — no more than women are wilting flowers — and stereotypes are easily defeated by a complete picture of the world.

* * *

I’ve got three suggestions for how we can all start taking down awful conceptions of male sexuality — and the word "creep" with them.

1) Sam summed it up best: "Accept male desire, and accept men’s word when they talk about it."

Like most people, men want sex, and that’s not a bad thing. Like everyone, men deserve to feel as though their sexuality is hot, awesome, delicious, valuable, and can be pleasurable for all parties in a consensual situation. Just as women shouldn’t have to feel exploited when they have consensual sex, men shouldn’t have to feel like they’re exploiting someone when they have consensual sex. Just as more and more space is being made for forthright discussion of female sexuality, more and more space should be made for forthright discussion of male sexuality.

Of course there are inappropriate ways for men to express their desire, just as there are inappropriate ways for women to express their desire. For example, it’s not okay for people of any sex to continue hitting on someone after that person has clearly asked them to stop. It’s not okay for people in a position of power, like employers or clients, to use their position to harass or sexually intimidate people under their authority.

But these situations are a far cry from creating more dialogue in appropriate places — like gender studies classes or blogs — about male sexuality. They’re also a far cry from giving men like my S&M friend the benefit of the doubt when they join conversations about desire.

2) "Male sexuality should be approached from the concept of pleasure rather than accomplishment," writes machina.

Men are under so much pressure to get busy all the time that even when they’re having sex, their own pleasure may be less central than meeting the stereotype of how dudes are supposed to get laid. For some men, the stereotypes do kinda represent their desires; for some, the stereotypes don’t work at all. A man who’s the top partner in anal sex with his girlfriend might be scoring big according to popular consensus … but if what he really craves is for her to peg him with a strap-on, then he’s not actually scoring at all. Even a guy who contentedly loves anal sex might have the chance at mind-blowing sexual paradise if he decided to risk something new, to think outside the box.

Linking sex to accomplishment rather than pleasure also leads to some men caring more about getting it done than their partners’ consent. It’s obvious that the "I can smell your pussy" guy, for example, was more concerned with making a show than having a mutually hot experience.

Obviously, most people aren’t rapists, and as HughRistik says: "I don’t think an individual man deserves to feel that his sexuality is toxic merely because he is a man and other men have displayed their sexuality in toxic ways." But assault and harassment are real problems, causing real anxieties. (And not just for women. I’ve heard stories about how men’s boundaries are routinely ignored; one example is women who, while exploring naked fun with some happy gentleman, will initiate condomless sex without even asking if he’s cool with that.)

It’s incumbent upon all of us to discourage that kind of thing when we see or hear about it, no matter who it comes from. It’s also incumbent upon us to honor each others’ boundaries. But this is not a question of limiting or repressing male sexuality, and it shouldn’t be framed that way. It should be framed entirely as a question of consent, communication and respect.

* * *

There were a wide variety of responses to this article around the blogosphere. Here are some that I generally liked, and that made me think:

If you’ve come across any interesting responses to the article that you think I might have missed, please do let me know about them!

* * *

Followup Note, Early 2012:

I don’t think I could have predicted how anti-feminists were going to grab this whole thing. There’s been a lot of talk about how my article implies that women have no right to set boundaries or say “no,” and that’s not what I meant, and it would never be what I meant.

Sometimes I’m like “OMG I should never have written this damn thing” but when I wrote it, the conversation was really different. And I do hear a lot from guys who say they found this article really comforting, including feminist guys who I respect. So I think the conversation could have gone a different direction, a much more productive one that didn’t include telling women we have no right to set boundaries. Too bad it didn’t.

On the bright side, I do think that the responses above were good, and that they moved the conversation forward.

126 responses to “Men Who Don’t Deserve the Word “Creep””

Really, really good article. I think a lot about creepiness, and worry about doing it, but I’d never really thought of how it fits in with slut-shaming and that lot.

Whenever I hear an anecdote about some creep doing or saying some creepy thing or other, my first thought is inevitably amazement/amusement that he thought it would work. Being pretty hopeless with women myself, my attitude is there but for a crippling lack of confidence, go I, and smugness that at least I would have known better than to try that particular approach with that particular woman in that particular situation.

For me the problem with creeps isn’t being honest or straightforward about our desires, it’s about not being able to judge when, with whom and how much that kind of forwardness will be appropriate. It’s the same kind of ineptitude, I think, that your average Nice Guy (R) suffers from, but we’re too Nice (R) to be forward enough, rather than being too forward and creepy. But either way, it’s misjudgements and insensitivity, rather than just talking about who you want to slip one to.

Being a creep is as much based on situation and the woman in question as the actual creepy thing to do – bearing in mind that the same approach in a crowded bar is much less creepy than in an empty train carriage, and that it’s a bad idea to be massively open about your sexuality when your conversation partner isn’t.

Case in point your BDSM internet suitor – I would still agree with him that it was a little bit creepy, in that he was being quite open and forward and confident with someone who was inexperienced, confused and ashamed. How much did he test the water first? Did he start by offering friendly advice and guidance, or slam straight into top gear and go straight into what he’d tie you to?

was just going to post the article manboobz put up. great post. had never thought of it that way and i guess if i want more openness/less shame about sexuality and sex, men should be able to express their sexuality without fear of being labeled a “creep.”

This is something I’ve thought about before (although I used the tv character Angel for a more direct description). The presumption of toxicness (if that’s not already a word I ordain it so now) in male sexuality is a terrible thing that must be dealt with. How can you expect men/boys to have a healthy sexuality while at the same time telling them they are dirty just for being men/boys and pretty much refusing to hear them out on even the simplist of things?

For what it’s worth, I appreciate that you’re someone of stature within the feminist blog-o-sphere, and you’re using some of that to try for dialogue to provide with a positive model of approaching sexuality.

I can say as a male, that I’ve literally been terrified of expressing my sexuality both when meeting new partners and in committed relationships.

It’s exactly as you’ve said, I feel like I’m totting the very fine line between creep and stud. It’s a constant battle to show a girl you’re interested in her because you don’t know how she’ll react. Half of the time I feel like I’m approaching a wild animal, in that I’m trying to show that I’m not trying to harm you as I draw closer to you. I know at any second you could be accepting of me or hate me, regardless of how good I was. The problem is, my drawing closer may be sexual or just platonic, but wither way I run the risk of offending you.

Even the pegging thing is an issue. I had a partner I used to do it with, and honestly it was terrifying to bring it up just because of the fear of being less than a man in your partner’s eyes.

I asked someone out the other day though. An acquaintance, who works as a model. She’s very, very nice to look at. We don’t really know each other, but we have some mutual friends and shared interests (she’s primarily a fetish model and attends some scene events in my local area). I’d never really made an effort to get to know her because I’d made some assumptions about her based on her appearance and a few of the people she interacts with. I happened to read some of her writing online about sexuality and gender roles and she was much more than I’d given her credit for, so I read through some more of her writing and found out that I’d completely fucked up my assumptions – very cool, very intelligent girl who I really want to get to know better. But this girl is a working model. Her pictures are up on fetish websites and it’s easy to see that she gets a LOT of attention from random guys – some of whom are legitimately creepy. Hell, she runs a forum for reposting creepy copy and pasted spam received on personals sites. Approaching her to ask her out was fucking nerve wracking. This girl is on the receiving end of a huge amount of very creepy behavior, and I’m out of the blue getting in touch to express my interest in her. I don’t want to pretend it’s something it’s not, because my interest in her isn’t abstract or for pure friendship – I’m attracted to her. But expressing that first without being creepy, and then without being construed as being creepy was a challenge. It was the most nervous I’ve been asking someone out since high school. It went fine of course and I’m looking forward to hanging out with her in the near future. But so much intensity and context for such a simple thing, just to avoid the creep label. It is certainly up there in the worst things you can call a guy.

That said, I know guys who absolutely deserve the title of Creepy. Hell I know guys who need a title of something more than Creepy. But ‘OhgodIneedanadultIwishIcarriedpepperspray’ is conversationally awkward.

For the most part, these guys aren’t non-consent oriented/predatory creepy. They’re looking for consensual partners – but something profound is broken about their view of other human beings. These are guys with no understanding that other people are more than life support system for sex organs, or that other people’s decision not to be sexually available to them, whenever or wherever they want – is more than a barrier to be worked around. They genuinely can’t understand why potential partners might not immediately want to have sex with them.

Just as an example of creepy, I had a guy contact me at a fetish personals site, which is fine, because my profile says I’m looking for guys or girls. But his opening message read.

“Oh God. Oh Man. Fuck yeah. Look at the size of ya. How big ya Feet?”

I’m sorry, that’s just fucking creepy. I got from his profile that the guy had a thing for feet – but he was just seeing me as some kind of life support system for a set of physical characteristics that he finds appealing. I might have been ok catering to his interests if I knew him, if I had some investment in him being happy, or if I had some kind of attraction or chemistry with the guy from previous interactions. But as an opening line? Ugh. At the risk of losing the ‘straight acting’ prefix to my bisexual descriptor, I want to be more than a sack of meat capable of filling some sexual niche for the people I interact with. I want them to actually like me. When they skip past the liking me (as in my personality) part and go straight to wanting to use me for some fantasy that has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with the size of my feet? It’s nice for a fat bald man’s self image – but it’s not attractive and it’s certainly not making me comfortable with that person’s sexuality.

As a side note –

@Question – I have a friend who approaches the pegging thing by kind of sneaking up on it from behind… so to speak. He expresses an interest in trying anal sex with new partners and tries to lead the conversation around to the girl suggesting ‘yeah, after we do it to you maybe’ – and then agrees that he’s up for that if he gets to do her. Being willing to do what it takes to get the new sexual achievement has some magical power to void the less cliche manly desires of catching. It seems to work pretty well for him.

@Alex — How much did he test the water first? Did he start by offering friendly advice and guidance, or slam straight into top gear and go straight into what he’d tie you to?

Jeez, people love analyzing that anecdote, huh? No matter how many details I add in!

He started his initial email by sending me a short humorous poem. Then he introduced himself and asked the question as phrased in the above post.

@manboobz — I actually had mixed feelings about that post. I don’t really like the author’s attitude, but I have a hard time pinning down why. I mean … if I had an encounter like that with a guy who walked me home, I wouldn’t call him a creep. But I would be kind of unsettled by his apparent total freaked-outness and overexaggerated dramatics about how I didn’t invite him upstairs to sleep with me after walking me home.

Stories like that make me feel nervous about having guys walk me home, and they consequently make me more likely to take risks like going home alone after dark rather than asking a guy to walk me home. I don’t feel safe walking home alone, but sometimes I feel even less safe asking guys at my current location to see me home. It’s like, I have to weigh the risk of actually being attacked on my way home by a stranger, vs. the risk of the guy who walks me home assuming that the script automatically grants him some kind of sexual escalation because he did so.

@Danny — How can you expect men/boys to have a healthy sexuality while at the same time telling them they are dirty just for being men/boys and pretty much refusing to hear them out on even the simplist of things?

Saying that people refuse to hear men/boys out on “even the simplest of things” is a gigantic exaggeration. Did you mean that people refuse to hear men/boys out on even the simplest of sexuality-related questions?

Interesting perspective. I’ve always thought the word “creep” applied specifically to _inappropriate_ sexual attention, not just overt/explicit sexual attention. (Yes, “inappropriate” is a slippery concept.) So using the word “creep” isn’t punishing men for having sexual desires, just for expressing them at inappropriate times or in inappropriate ways. I think the behavior is “punished” whether a man or a woman is doing it, but “creep” is definitely gendered, sort of a derivative of “dirty old man.” I don’t think “slut” is the feminine counterpart to the word; in fact I don’t think there is a feminine counterpart.

“Jeez, people love analyzing that anecdote, huh? No matter how many details I add in!

He started his initial email by sending me a short humorous poem. Then he introduced himself and asked the question as phrased in the above post.”
Well, of course we do. Most of us will never offer an introductory thrashing to a naive young sub via the internet, so we’re all very curious, and those of us that do are always willing to learn the right and wrong ways to do it.

Besides, it’s a really interesting situation, in that your boundaries are clearly going to be completely different to your average vanilla girl on her own in a café, both on one hand as a submissive and on the other as someone just getting into really intimidating sex. So what someone in that situation would consider creepy, and what others expect your boundaries to be is all very interesting.

The fact that he went straight into the initiation offer pretty much confirms why I think he seemed creepy. Probably the direct approach is fine if you’re into all that already, but not to someone new who still sees it as a perversion wrecking their life. Obviously if you’re creeped out by your own urges you’ll find any advance creepy too, but it shows he’s not taken your nervousness and vulnerability into account. On top of that, not even offering you advice or reassurance that there’s nothing to be ashamed of shows he’s way more interested in bedding than helping you, and hasn’t even had the courtesy to pretend otherwise to cushion the blow. I like the poem touch too. Makes it that little bit creepier I think – announcing there’s tension to be broken without actually doing much to break it.

“I don’t think “slut” is the feminine counterpart to the word; in fact I don’t think there is a feminine counterpart.”
It’s not a counterpart, but they’re comparable in the way they police sexuality – especially women’s. Just like we hate sluts because they disregard chastity, we hate creeps partly because they disregard chivalry and don’t treat women like delicate flowers who are scared of penises. Obviously disrespect for women is a wildly popular route into creepiness too, but on the other hand, you can be a perfect feminist ally with the utmost respect for your quarry’s boundaries and still be utterly inept at judging them.

AND ANOTHER THING:
You say there’s no counterpart to ‘creepy’, but can a woman be “sleazy”? If you imagine, say, a drunk fifty-something in smeared lipstick cracking on to nervous eighteen-year-olds? I think there are some deviations which could be equivalent.

Clarrise:Saying that people refuse to hear men/boys out on “even the simplest of things” is a gigantic exaggeration. Did you mean that people refuse to hear men/boys out on even the simplest of sexuality-related questions?
I thought that given the subject of the conversation that was a given. I suppose not. But to answer your question yes “even the simplest of sexuality-related things”.

So now that that is out of way (and I’ll even change “you” to “one”):

How can one expect men/boys to have a healthy sexuality while at the same time telling them they are dirty just for being men/boys and pretty much refusing to hear them out on even the simplist of sexuality-related things?

“It’s like, I have to weigh the risk of actually being attacked on my way home by a stranger, vs. the risk of the guy who walks me home assuming that the script automatically grants him some kind of sexual escalation because he did so.”

yeah, but put yourself in his shoes for a moment. It’s not that the script “automatically” grants any escalation. At the time you’re asking him, *you* already know, at least vaguely, what’s on your mind with respect to potential escalation. If things aren’t explicit, he doesn’t. So when you’re asking a guy to walk you home in a situation where it is not customary to walk single women home for chivalrous/safety reasons, then he is logically assuming that your asking him means *something*. And if there has been any allusion to sexual interest, it’s probably not too unreasonable to wonder whether your asking him home has to do with that.

The problem is that you’re asking for something (exchange) that has an value and implied subtext (currency) (friendship, “chivalry”, sex) but the state of the relationship doesn’t allow an overly reasonable guess at which subtext it may be and thus which behaviour would be appropriate.

So, explicit communication seems better, but I’m not so sure about that. Because what would happen if you had to make your intentions explicit earlier? “There’s really no chance of you getting any, sorry. But will you walk me home, I feel unsafe?” may not get you the desired results whenthe person in question is not already a good friend and then there is no problem to begin with.

So the whole problem only arises if you’re afraid of being clear with someone you are not interested in sexually who you assume is interested in you because you’re afraid that in that case you wouldn’t get what you want (be walked home). The problem doesn’t arise if you assume you’re both looking for the same subtext for your interactions, whatever that may be – in that case communication will work fine. The doorstep problem can only arise (with reasonable people) if you are leave your preferred relationship subtext deliberately unclear, or if you actually don’t know it yourself at that point.

In either case, depending on what his preferred relationship subtext is, he’s kind of forced to get that information at your doorstep by doing *something*.

And if the expectations aren’t congruent there’s bound to be disappointment, regardless of whether the guy escalates or not.

If he’s interested, and he hopes you’re into him, escalating at that point is what will keep him out of the nice guy corner. The nice guy ™ will take you home and not make a move despite his interest and seeing the signals, but he may resent you for signalling and then not following up.

So, with an unclear relationship status and incongruent states of interest, the guy really is in a double bind.

Ask about her interest level before and make it a quid-pro-quo interaction will make him a jerk, moving in at the doorstep may make him creepy, not moving risks being seen as a just a friend because lack of escalation also communicates lack of interest.

That’s the case you recently mentioned, when you believed a guy wasn’t interested in you because he *did not escalate at that point* and he was later insulted when he realized you believed he wanted makeout/sex on the first date.

The dynamic we’re alluding to here is also a part of why young men who are not confident in the relationship with a particular woman (and I mean even the relationship with a particular hookup) may find themselves performing unprotected sex even when they don’t want to.

I have been thinking about some incidents HughRistik mentioned in one recent document thread in Yes Means Yes, and one which I mentioned in another such thread.

Of course I cannot actually speak for HughRistik. But I think there are cultural conventions that make it difficult to make conversational space within a hookup to talk about one’s desires — for protection, and for anything else — in some standard-variety vanilla hookups. And I think it is very directly related to some of the themes Sam has been bringing up here — female touch and sex as being valued, men’s touch and sex as being devalued.

One key to Nice Guy psychology in sex, I would argue, is the feeling “how dare I be presumptuous?” Now, this also relates to Miguel’s call for “entitlement.” The feeling that having sexual desires or intentions toward this particular woman and this particular time is intrinsically presumptuous may seem to be laudable and pro-consent, and yet it works in an opposite direction to the ability to talk honestly within any particular encounter. Which is why it is related to the male fear of being a “creep.”

The dynamic becomes a kind of walking on eggshells in the hope that one will “get” the sex that one wants. Now this can be criticized to Kingdom Come, and perhaps the dignified and moral stance is always that such opportunities are well lost if they come at the cost of not feeling comfortable to bring up the desire to use a condom, or any other desires except the implicit desire to “get some,” or rather to be granted some.

It is not an arrogant position. It is rather a position that one doesn’t actually deserve any of the sex, touching, what have you that might be on offer, and that one should be thankful for what one gets, and that if one brings up any particular preference one might not obtain what one thinks one desires. Someone in this mindset will not bring up protection.

I’m not really trying to project onto HughRistik here, except to note that according to my own common sense, talking about protection really ought to be done not only before sex but even before “naked makeout sessions,” given the nonzero probability that such things might escalate. So one speculates that there may have been some situational or dynamic reason why this would not seem appropriate; please pardon me if I am out of line for speculating thus. I know from my own experience, obviously, that idealistic common sense does not always play out in the event.

It is important to say, therefore, that the consent idea, “consent to one act does not mean consent to any other,” does NOT imply the subtext, “just because you, barely, deserve one act doesn’t mean that you rate any other.” (I’m not saying the woman necessarily is acting this out; some do, no doubt; rather it is a feeling that one-down men generally get out of the air itself.) It seems to me that men in a one-down position fail to understand consent because it looks like supplication to them; yet it is more like its opposite.

It can be “creepy” to seem presumptuous in a sexual encounter, but if we are to move to more explicit consent we need to encourage men to be just presumptuous enough to feel that they deserve to be able to articulate what they want even in a “casual” hookup situation. When they do so they often find that they have misread women in the first place. I am not blaming this dynamic on women themselves, but rather on a tyro misreading of the general cultural principle that women’s sexuality is valued and men’s is not.

Just to elaborate: men who feel that their specific desires for specific women would be presumptuous, will not have condoms in their rooms/ apartments. They will not carry condoms with them to parties or school. They will not be able to bring up the subject to women that they are making out with, for fear that the time would be premature. And then, comes the opportunity, which they had not dared hope for…

And it turns out that to be prepared for it, one had to be able to hope for it, and even (gasp!) plan for it…

Humbition – yeah, I’ve undergone that condom angst (specifically), and the rest generally. Condom angst cuts both ways though, because not being prepared is also presumptuous. At least, if it was a prescheduled date or whatnot.

I suppose spontaneous situations may be different? I’ve never had that come up, but I’d be hard pressed to imagine myself carrying condoms “just in case”. I do on dates/whatnot without much anxiety anymore, though.

Clarisse, I want to express a deep thank you for furthering dialogue and doing what not many have had the courage to do, which is try to understand men. Not “condone” or “suck up to” or “excuse” every man’s behaviour, but simply understand or walk a mile in someone’s shoes.

I applaud you for it, and having seen the “what about the menz” shaming tactics employed around the femi-sphere, I know it wasn’t easy to do and you actually risked being cast aside as a “gender traitor” and other things.

I am glad to see there are starting to be sane discussions on both sides (even do both sides are still mostly ruled by one-sided radicals), there are some sane ones popping up.

Look into Lady Catherine if you will. She links to both (sane) mra and (sane) feminist blogs that propel dialogue and understanding, as opposed to bitter misunderstandings and gender distrust.

On the subject of the creepy label, I want to say that the irony that a lot of “pro-creep-label” people don’t get is that it *hurts women* more then it hurts men to throw it about recklessly.

It actually creates this viscous circle that looks a little something like this:

– woman calls a good guy that’s not smooth/charming and or stumbles romantically a creep or demonizes him for perfectly good intentions

– good guy being good, starts struggling with his morality, and decides the only way to be good, is to not initiate with women, because anytime (he generalizies) he does initiate, he ends up a “creep”

– more and more good guys retreat and give up, shack up with an xbox, trying to repress their evil sexuality… while at the same time being told they’re LOSERS for not pursuing women (damned if you do, damned if you don’t)

– AT THE SAME TIME… the only guys proactively pursuing women are guys who don’t give a damn if they insult a woman, are called a creep or offend anyone (i.e. the real TRUE creeps)

– This skews the percentage to where most of the guys a woman gets approached by ARE genuine creeps (only the creeps don’t care, and continue pursuing)

– This further makes her generalize all guys as being creeps (conveniently leaving out that for the guy who hits on 30 women a night, there are 29 guys who don’t dare even try for fear of being labeled a creep)

– The more she generalizes all guys as being creeps, the more she scares off the few good guys who aren’t (they get falsely labeled) and so they give up too… and the loop reinforces itself once again…

@Alex — The fact that he went straight into the initiation offer pretty much confirms why I think he seemed creepy. Probably the direct approach is fine if you’re into all that already, but not to someone new who still sees it as a perversion wrecking their life.

I guess. I’m reluctant to give any more exact words/context for this interaction, but suffice to say that while your reading is interesting, I’m not convinced. I wish people hadn’t gotten so bogged down in that specific example, but then again, I guess that’s what happens when you use real-life examples to score rhetorical points, and all the debate really illustrates how unclear the meaning of the word “creep” actually is.

@Sam — “There’s really no chance of you getting any, sorry. But will you walk me home, I feel unsafe?” may not get you the desired results

Right, the problem is that preemptively rejecting men tends to really upset them. Men say they want clarity, but in general they don’t any more than women do, and they often socially punish clarity with some harshness. I can’t imagine saying the above to someone and being sure that it wouldn’t either (a) offend him or (b) be dismissed as a joke that was actually intended to pique his interest (which would put me in an even worse spot).

@humbition — Yeah, the condom stigma/angst thing is something I’ve thought about before in other highly stigmatized contexts such as queer people who have sex without using condoms because they’re so anxious about thinking about the sex itself. Hell, low self-esteem and high anxiety about sex made me a lot worse about safety for many years, as I was becoming sexually active. I mean, in all honesty, I STILL often leave condom/sexual history negotiations for later than I should. It sometimes amazes me to notice that due to anxiety about explicit discussion I have actually left sexual history discussion until, like, we’ve been making out for a long time. And THIS IS ME. I really, really wish I had a better solution to the problem than “get over it” or “just talk about it”. Compared to my BDSM communication skills, my safer sex communication skills are novice level (well, maybe journeyman level), but a dramatic part of the problem really is that it is HARD to acknowledge what is happening sexually while it’s happening.

A clarification on above loop. When I see women complain about being hurt or having bad experiences with “all men”, I have compassion and understanding for these women, and I know how they reached the conclusion…

Because studies (and casual observation) consistently show that sociopathic and psychopathic men tend to be the most aggressive in the dating sphere.

This dumb game, where 1) men are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t 2) women can’t initiate themselves…

Creates a situation where 99% of the guys approaching a woman are guys who don’t give a flying f**k if they hurt her or what she thinks. Its a sad reality, but right now, the only guys who see any success with women, are the kind who believe in a mentality of “I’ll hit on and bother 30 women till one says yes”.

And feminism never tackles this issue, immediately going into a defensive “oh, another what about the menz crap”… Its not about the menz! Women are getting hurt when good guys throw in the towel and decide the only way to be good is to not interact with women at all.

Women are hurt when the only guys left interacting with women are the psychopaths and sociopaths. This is mostly propelled by this societal stupid rule that says a woman’s only role is someone who says “no, no, no, no, no, yes”… Instead of asking the question herself.

I really think this would be solved if women were encouraged to approach and pursue and initiate themselves. What they’ll find out when they do this is that hey… most guys are good! Its just that the good guys didn’t initiate/move forward!? This would kill off jerks really fast, when they have no advantage (as women no longer wait around to be pursued/initiated).

Ok, i read it, and I must say I was disappointed… I loved this part though!

=========
Of course feminism should focus on women and things that harm women. At the same time, if feminists cede the field of romantic advice, we cede it to pickup artists and The Rules. Yes, there are many very important gender issues to deal with, and perhaps some of those issues could be characterized as “more important” than how we negotiate romance. But cultural standards are not independent pillars; rather, they’re a complex and interdependent web of norms and ideas. Having a positive impact in one area of gender relations will affect the rest of the web.
======

To discuss gender issues and not tackle dating is like trying to analyze racism, and never mention skin color. Its like the big pink elephant in the room… and as you said, all the pieces are intertwined… You can’t analyze them as if they existed in a vacuum.

One thing that I find rather odd, is that feminist say they have NO TIME/priority to discuss dating, courtship, who initiates, bla bla bla, but these same feminists dedicate HYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGE space to lists of what NOT TO DO. Ok, we’re going to write a 500 page treatise on why men suck in how they ask women out, and how they should NOT do it… but we have no time to say what they SHOULD do… That just sounds like someone is hiding something.

The rest of your article though sounded like a huge rationalization for women to keep being passive and not do work. My favorite cliched explanation is about how *supposedly* men are emasculated by women asking them out, or don’t respond to it in practice bla bla.

Like most feminist theories, this one too uses the word “men” when it really means alpha males. Womanizers… yes, they get asked out by women ALL THE TIME… In fact, I know womanizers who turn women down more than even an attractive women has to turn down men. Guess what? These guys like the thrill of the chase and don’t like being approached.

Guess what though? For every one womanizer, there are a 100 guys who DO respond well to the woman initiating, but women RARELY initiate with this guy. Its funny, but women only ever seem to approach and initiate with exactly the guys who don’t respond to it… and then use this is an excuse to keep being the lazy party. You might think the word “lazy” is harsh, but its not. Until women do more work in this area, and stop making excuses with super-complicated theories (elaborate rationalizations for laziness), then I think the word lazy is appropriate.

Alek, I haven’t been active in the dating scene for maybe a generation. But it took me looking years later at my life to understand just how many women’s signals I may have been missing. It’s a poignant realization, though I wouldn’t trade where I ended up for any of that…

It’s not just a matter of alphaness. As you otherwise point out, many men get the idea that their basic sexuality is somehow wrong or damaging, and leave the scene, waiting for some magic intervention (would they recognize it if it showed up?). Better to get back in the game, affirm the goodness of your own basic sexuality, accept that you will make mistakes and that someone, somewhere, might think something you did was “creepy” — and then learn from that, without self-blame but with self-awareness.

Eventually you will see that “initiation” isn’t what it’s cracked up to be, that everything is a two way street (unless someone is really being wrong, but that’s rarer than it’s made out to be).

Whoever initiates, no one can do your work for you. Even if women “step up,” you have to step up too.

And read some primatology — Frans de Waal, in particular. True alphaness is not being the biggest bully, even in chimpanzees. It is more like what used to be called in mid-century American culture, “leadership.” We could all do well to learn those skills, which are not skills of oppression (and which have their “feminine” component, no matter how macho the guy who wields them).

Well, if you count signals as initiation, I’d say that women initiate even more then men. In fact…

1) some studies and research on it showed that most successful hookups, occur with the woman initiating subtly, such as positioning herself, or flipping her hair or whatever… they interviewed the guys who thought the hookup was *their idea*, but the hidden cameras showed that in almost every case the woman had chosen the guy before he was even aware of her. So if you count her part (getting noticed, positioning herself, being seen, looking at him from her peripheral vision all triggering instinctive parts of a man)… then in fact women can be said to initiate maybe more

2) Speaking of primatology, back when most of its researchers for men, they were concluding that the male primates initiate the sex… until female researchers joined the field. When these female researchers joined in, they started pointing out that it was in fact the female primates initiating things, its just that the male researchers couldn’t see this part

All in all, your points are all valid, but its more semantics… When I say “initiate” I’m not using the broad meaning, but specifically the approach/ask out/touch first/lean in for kiss first/verbalize sex etc…

Its all inter-connected, and until women do more of it, the situation can not be solved. It just can’t. Some other commenter pointed out that only when men become the receivers of unwanted sexual advanced, unwanted asking out etc… etc… will men be able to develop a true sense and calibration for what its like. So, all in all there are plenty of reasons for women to start doing it more.

“Right, the problem is that preemptively rejecting men tends to really upset them.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “preemtively”. I mean, you’re not rejecting just in case they may make a move later, you’re rejecting them because you assume they are interested and you know you are not. I’d say that’s plain rejection, not preemptive rejection.

“Men say they want clarity, but in general they don’t any more than women do, and they often socially punish clarity with some harshness.”

I think both women and men are equally capable of selective perception. Clarity may contradict that perception, so that may lead to a reaction of either the belief that the clear statement is not actually clear but strategic for some reason, or, if accepted, to a feeling of “betrayal” since the subjectively perceived signals were interpreted as valid. So, if you perceive someone to be saying all the time “I’m really into you” and then suddenly that person says “I’m really not”, the first reaction will probably not be to question your senses, but to believe you were lied to either before or now, don’t you think?

And I just realized that’s basically what you said in the next sentence…

But I still think it’s rather simple – if you don’t want the doorstep moment then don’t ask guys to take you home who may believe you are implying something. Like guys you have met that night with whom there is not yet a clear understanding of the relationship structure and with whom you feel unsafe about being explicit beforehand, and whom you feel you’d put into the double bind situation at the doorstep.

I mean, again, I believe this is only a problem when expectations are incongruent or individually unknown. When *you* don’t know what you want, you may be waiting for his escalation at the doorstep to see how that makes you feel and make up your mind at that point. In that case, there’s really no way around the situation, and it’s not even a problem.

But if you have already made up your mind the question you’re asking could be framed differently – is it ok to ask guys to take you home (do you a favour that will usually end their night as well, leaving out peripheral cases like “it’s on their way and they were leaving anyway”), even if you know you are not interested in anything *and* you know you asking may get their hopes up? I mean, you *could* see this as a signalling problem similar to the necklace example in the other thread that upset you, don’t you think?

Of course, that doesn’t make all reactions appropriate (like the guy in the article).

Also, creepiness, recently, I had the opportunity of having to witness a usually rather cool guy become creepy out of desperation/neediness. He’s so lonely right now and looking for female validation that he’s just sad when he’s sober but becomes grabby/annoyingly persistent/not taking clues when he’s drunk, because in that state rejection is even more painful than it is normally. But at the same time rejection becomes even more likely because it’s so much harder to create attraction, particularly since he’s so desperate that he will interpret every “hello” as a come-on sign and then completely physically miscalibrate his advances, which then leads to more rejection, and so on.

He also made me realize something I think is particularly important for “creepiness”. Timing. I mentioned something similar before in the manliness thread in my attempted “creep” taxonomy with respect to the “premature sexualisation” type. But there’s another aspect with respect to timing, particularly when it comes to touching. It’s about finding the sweet spot between hovering/lingering/being undecisive about one’s actions/touches and giving her enough time to react to the attempt in some way (and then to understand that reaction). That, in a way, requires *bold*, perceptible “moves”, which, in a way, may be a part of the answer why guys who aren’t bold are not rarely perceived as “creepy” when they interact with women.

I’d like to add something… a stereotype thrown around a lot, this idea that men are really terrible about rejection (and then some feminists tying it into even patriarchal-based theories of power or what not).

I’ve seen no evidence this is male-specific. I have a really good friend who’s like a male model, and he has to reject the advances of women all the time (he’s in a relationship)… Guess what? The women react a LOT WORSE then i’ve ever seen guys react to rejection.

They freak out, become verbally agressive, and virtually ALL have to call him gay. I don’t know why specifically that word, but then they freak out and yell that he’s gay and complain to other people, and get all passive agressive and freak out that he didn’t let them convince him into cheating on his girlfriend.

So again, the fact that we see more cases of men freaking out to rejection is (I believe) simply mired in the fact that men get most of the rejections :D … Women are not much better at it.

Alek, if you’re really going to start using snippy words like “lazy”, then I’m done with this conversation. Yes, it is harsh. Don’t use it and then say “It may sound harsh but …” No. It’s just harsh, and rude.

Furthermore, I’m tired of hearing heterosexual men claim that they know exactly how women ought to approach them. They don’t. Isn’t this what pickup artists complain about women doing? Pickup artists complain that most women don’t really know how to advise men on how to pick up women (either that, or most women can’t articulate what they want in a way that men can understand), which is why the PUA subculture exists. The same is true of men.

“either that, or most women can’t articulate what they want in a way that men can understand”

I’m not sure it’s really about “can’t” more than “usually won’t” because they, just as men, will adapt their stated desires in ways that conform to the perceived social requirements. Speaking from my own experience (but also remembering your paper about lessons from extraordinary lovers) I would say that women *are* able to articulate what they want *when they actually know what they want* but that they will only do so in a safe communicative space. I think I’ve come close to that with my best female friend and another one (and the manliness thread and attached communication seems pretty safe in many respects as well :)), but it’s the mark of a really good friendship. And that, in turn, implies specific knowledge of the other person which makes it more difficult to generalize about “women” and “men” based on the individual person’s account.

Ok, I apologize for using the word “lazy”. I’m just wondering, why is that of several comments, one of which was to praise you and agree with you (and it was genuine I assure you) and then me making 50 other points, you only chose to respond to this one word?

“”Furthermore, I’m tired of hearing heterosexual men claim that they know exactly how women ought to approach them.””

I don’t remember this? Are you sure you’re not confusing me someone else? I don’t even remember talking about how women should approach men?

“”I don’t remember this? Are you sure you’re not confusing me someone else? I don’t even remember talking about how women should approach men?””

What I meant was “I don’t remember about me giving instructions on how women should go about and do the approaching.”

If you mean that I advocated that more women should approach more men… Then the clarification here would be that I said “In order for this problem to be solved, it can’t be solved without women approaching more”. I’m not giving anyone a command on what to do. I’m just saying these problems can’t be fixed if women sit in the passive role of never initiating/asking out/approaching.

This is just my opinion, and I am not dogmatic about it. If someone can show me I’m wrong, that’s fine.

Alek, what problem are you talking about specifically? The problem of some women finding some men creepy? The problem of most men not knowing how it feels to be on the receiving end of unwanted attention? Should women start harassing men just to teach them a lesson?

Even if that happened, it wouldn’t work. We would need men to be brought up in a climate of fear (and I’m not talking about fear of rejection here), we would need more men to go public about being raped by women, and lots of ads and advice about how men could avoid it, and we would need the women doing the teaching to be large, preferably unattractive, and, well, creepy. At least if we’re to make the conditions more similar. Not to mention that since most of this behaviour comes from sexually unattractive guys, women would need to target those specifically, which is just not realistic, or fair.

Don’t get me wrong, I would love to live in a world where no man ever talked about how he enjoyed the chase and wouldn’t be attracted to a woman who took the initiative, where books like The Rules didn’t tell women they had to be passive, where a woman’s value wasn’t tied so much to her appearance that a direct lack of sexual attraction from men (such as in the case of a rejection) could be construed as a personal attack on her worth as a person, and men weren’t supposed to be so sexually indiscriminate that getting told off could have embarrassing implications for a woman. I would love for it to be more common for women to be the ones doing the asking.

However, that’s not the same as believing it would solve the problem of unwanted attention. Rather, it might make the sexually unsuccessful/dissatisfied women less likely to hold back, but the sexually unsuccessful/dissatisfied men would largely be the same as they are now, and probably act in much the same way. Perhaps people would be better equipped to solve the problem, since they wouldn’t be thinking along gendered lines, but the problem would still be there.

“Until women do more work in this area, and stop making excuses with super-complicated theories (elaborate rationalizations for laziness), then I think the word lazy is appropriate.”
Really? Put these women in your shoes for a second. Have you ever in your life decided not to chat a woman up, or ask her out somewhere, or lean in to kiss her, because you couldn’t be bothered? I think maybe once I was sitting on a train and thought “that woman is very pretty, should I talk to her?”, but then I didn’t because I was enjoying my book. Every other time I’ve neglected to initiate it’s been because I was nervous she’d say no or think I was creepy, because I was waiting for an appropriate moment and failed to identify one before we parted company, or because I just plain didn’t know how. Add to this an ingrained stigma attached to you initiating things, that could get you labelled a slut and make the object of your advances insecure about his masculinity to the point that he rejects you offhand, and there’s much more to it than laziness.

“Creates a situation where 99% of the guys approaching a woman are guys who don’t give a flying f**k if they hurt her or what she thinks. Its a sad reality, but right now, the only guys who see any success with women, are the kind who believe in a mentality of “I’ll hit on and bother 30 women till one says yes”.”
I think your statistics are a bit out here. It might not be exactly 99%. I also think you’re massively over-simplifying the way fear of creepiness works. The world doesn’t split into confident, scattergun-tactic creeps and respectful but frustrated losers. Yeah, there’ll be blokes who no icy glance can discourage, and pathetic wretches who never dare ask anyone out (me aged 19).

But everyone else works on a case-by-case basis. You get to one of those horrible ambiguous situations where she’s not got mace out, but she’s also not said “kiss me you fool”, and you have to decide what to do. Yes, not wanting to creep her out will affect your decision, and the ones who go for it regardless are probably the most unsavoury ones, but it doesn’t boil down to two types of man. Just two ways of judging that particular, one-off situation. And like I said before, the other defining feature of a creep is being unable to judge the right situation to make a move.

Furthermore, I’m tired of hearing heterosexual men claim that they know exactly how women ought to approach them. They don’t. Isn’t this what pickup artists complain about women doing?

Although I think that you’re right about not knowing, there’s a limit to the equivalence that can be asserted here. The strongest element of the limit is that, because men tend to be consistently associated with the approach role (and tend to run it internally even if they don’t act it out), they have a particular kind of reference that women likely would not. Meaning, by that, that they have personal, experiential conceptions of what they would be communicating and/or feeling during certain aspects of the approach, refined and reinforced over years of actual, abandoned or considered approaches — which, in turn, would be associated with what one experiences and observes during an approach, not unlike memories triggered by sights, sounds and smells.

Based upon my own experiences being approached and the discussions I’ve had about it with women: it’s similar to a woman getting a feel for what’s being communicated during an approach, after repeatedly experiencing them. But the bodily source, or the quality of that source, seems to be different. There’s a self-referential quality to it, like having someone walk into or through your home. That might not involve knowing where they should or shouldn’t step, or how they should or shouldn’t move; but the territory through which they’re moving is familiar. Intimately known.

Whether or not it’s possible to formulate that familiarity as a set of guidelines or recommendations is a different matter entirely, though.

Where “not knowing” comes in, I think, is in that what works and what doesn’t is also experiential; prior to that, it’s all speculative, or theoretical at best. That’s where the equivalence with SC criticism comes in.

There are other factors to consider, including the relative accessibility of language for articulating desire, the suitability of that language for the articulation needed, and familiarity with the use of that language for that kind of purpose. But I think that those factors are, if influential, still secondary to the above.

Before I answer anything else, I just want to say this… Why is that whenever this topic is raised “Maybe women should start approaching” there are multi-page answers of why “it wouldn’t work anyway”.

What’s hidden behind this door? Wouldn’t you agree that women are equal to men. Yes or no? If yes, then why couldn’t women have an equal ability to initiate? I don’t understand why so many people (even feminists) fight for this inequality (yeaaaaaah, buttttt…).

I just don’t get it. Its super weird to me. I mean, its not like a small inequality. Its not like women get to approach 10-20% of the time… Its more like 0.001% of relationships are started by women. Isn’t that super super super dis-empowering? Yet I see no one tackle it. There are 1000 page books analyzing why men are super pigs for a certain way they approach, but there are no books to empower women in approaching?

“”””Alek, what problem are you talking about specifically? The problem of some women finding some men creepy? The problem of most men not knowing how it feels to be on the receiving end of unwanted attention? Should women start harassing men just to teach them a lesson?””””

Actually… My point is that men don’t harass women on purpose, and that women most of the time label something harassment when its not.

A lesbian Journalist wrote a book where she dressed as a man, and tried living as a man. One of the experiences dating as a man. Approaching and asking out women was by far the most shocking thing to her and entirely changed how she viewed dating and approaching and got an entirely new understanding and compassion for men.

“””””Even if that happened, it wouldn’t work. We would need men to be brought up in a climate of fear (and I’m not talking about fear of rejection here), we would need more men to go public about being raped by women, and lots of ads and advice about how men could avoid it, and we would need the women doing the teaching to be large, preferably unattractive, and, well, creepy.”””

Well none of that exists in my country. Yet women still treat shy guys as creepy, and still have the label “creepy” and women still don’t approach men, and men are opting out of dating entirely, and women are frustrated (i have dozens of single female friends crying to me about how there are no men left)…

This is to them a serious issue to where its central to their life and paralyzes them.

“””I would love for it to be more common for women to be the ones doing the asking.”””

Ok, then why isn’t it done? Nobody is talking about it. Its the only inequality, the pink elephant in the room no one dares tackle.

“””However, that’s not the same as believing it would solve the problem of unwanted attention. Rather, it might make the sexually unsuccessful/dissatisfied women less likely to hold back, but the sexually unsuccessful/dissatisfied men would largely be the same as they are now, and probably act in much the same way. Perhaps people would be better equipped to solve the problem, since they wouldn’t be thinking along gendered lines, but the problem would still be there.”””

So you say there would be zero improvement and change? I would disagree, because as Clarissa said all of these things are interconnected and are like pillars that influence one another. They are self-reinforcing loops that feed on each other.

Point being — even… if… what you say is true and absolutely nothing change for women in the “getting creeped out department” which I completely disagree with… worst case scenario, women get a lot more control and empowerment of their lives. Again (this is worst case scenario). Now how is this a bad thing?

“””I think your statistics are a bit out here. It might not be exactly 99%. I also think you’re massively over-simplifying the way fear of creepiness works. The world doesn’t split into confident, scattergun-tactic creeps and respectful but frustrated losers. Yeah, there’ll be blokes who no icy glance can discourage, and pathetic wretches who never dare ask anyone out (me aged 19).”””

Not only do I know there is a third group. I am its representative. Today I meet women everywhere, and random acquaintances (male) think I must be a dating god, simply because the women respond great and are excited to be talking to me.

I assure you too, I’m not in the sociopathic/psychopathic range either, I just worked a lot on understanding women, to where today I can see a woman approached by 20 guys, where they all get shot down as potential rapist, and then I can go in there and become her best friend in 20 seconds… so I know there is this third group… I am its representative. My point is this is an extreme rarity. Not only do I know this anecdotally in that all men are either in the too shy to be treated like human range… Or in the jerks who don’t give a fu*k about women group.

There are even studies on this. Look into any of the studies associating sociopathy/psychopathy to hookups and dating. I didn’t invent this. Tons of studies have shown that by far sociopaths/psychopaths have the most dating/sexual success with women. (and its a huggeee margin)

There’s only 2 ways to explain this:

– Women prefer sociopaths? (I don’t believe this for a second)
– Sociopaths overwhelmingly are a majority of the offerings that women get

Now get this… That part is a fact validated by studies… I didn’t make up that part. What I am making up (my theory) is that the reason sociopaths are the majority of advances is ***precisely*** because we have created such an atmosphere where we have made it so hard for moral guys to succeed, that sociopaths thrive… Again, the sociopaths thriving isn’t from me. I’m just putting up a theory on why they do.

What I continually (anecdotally) notice is this:

– Perfectly well intentioned good guys continually get mislabeled as creeps
– Feeling toxic shame and guilt they give up on dating
– The sociopaths don’t care (remember, they have no conscience), so they don’t care about being labeled or unfairly harsh rejections, they just keep going
– Eventually this creates this distortion where the majority of guys that a woman meets are sociopaths
– This in turn makes women assume “all guys are jerks”
– Which in turn makes her even more suspicious and weary and defensive
– Which in turn makes her mistreat and falsely label even more good-intentioned guys
– Who (these moral guys) then give up, creating an even bigger disparity, where an even bigger percentage of the active approachers/initiators are jerks

This loop is getting worse in my mind, and one way to solve it is where women do more of the initiating. How would this solve anything? Well,for one thing, women won’t approach sociopaths :D For a second thing, women will get to see and know that most guys are not sociopaths and their suspicions/weariness toward men will drop.

“””Add to this an ingrained stigma attached to you initiating things, that could get you labelled a slut and make the object of your advances insecure about his masculinity to the point that he rejects you offhand, and there’s much more to it than laziness.”””

There are difficulties inherent in a woman starting to initiate, that’s true, so I was waaay OFF in using the word “lazy”… But there are no more, or no worse difficulties than for the average man to approach. They’re different, but no worse, so in essence, they’re not really a valid excuse to keep women dis-empowered.

The reason I used the word lazy, is because I’d use it for myself. I’m a super-rare guy. I’m one of only a handful of guys who has actually taken the time to understand women, and master approaching. I’m probably the only guy I know who can approach any woman, anywhere, and not only not be labeled a creep, but be almost like best friends with her in seconds. Its very subtle and it took years for me to achieve this level of calibration and understanding for how women want to be approached.

Most guys I see, get shot down most of the time. What do I say when I see these guys? I know the amount of effort and obstacles it took for me to master approaching. I know all the stigma and labelling I had to overcome.

A man has the stigma of being a pervert, a creep, a potential rapist. And when I was a mere normal guy, I was shamed away from even trying… In the sense that “Don’t do that, only rich/handsome guys can approach women”. For the normal, everyday guy, there are as many stigmas and obstacles attached. But I overcame them. And the thing is, for the guys I see who REFUSE to master this area, the word I use for them is “lazy”.

Now, women’s challenges are different, but its not like there is 1000% more things for women to overcome. There are many things/stigmas/issues/expectations to overcome, but they’re still in the human range.

And I see absolutely no reason why so many people are making excuses for women being so dis empowered as to not be able to actually take control of their dating and social life and have to wait around passively. I see no reason why people (even some feminists) keep trying to make excuses to keep a 15th century system and keep women down.

Before I answer anything else, I just want to say this… Why is that whenever this topic is raised “Maybe women should start approaching” there are multi-page answers of why “it wouldn’t work anyway”.

Because it’s brought up to silence women. It’s rarely brought up just because the guy or girl in question thought it could be a good idea, it’s made into a condition before guys will even consider maybe making the feelings of women into just a small consideration.

And you haven’t even answered my point, namely that the kind of behaviour that comes across as creepy is usually exhibited by sexually unsuccessful guys, and that they wouldn’t become sexually successful just because women started to approach men more, because they wouldn’t be the kind of men most women approached anyway. You’re not asking women to do what they want (rather than expecting men to do what they (the women) want), no, ultimately you’re asking that women approach guys who creep them out, and engage in romantic and sexual relations with those guys, because then maybe said guys wouldn’t be desperate, and thus not creep women out.

What’s hidden behind this door? Wouldn’t you agree that women are equal to men. Yes or no? If yes, then why couldn’t women have an equal ability to initiate? I don’t understand why so many people (even feminists) fight for this inequality (yeaaaaaah, buttttt…).

Most feminists do fight for that, they’re just not doing it in the simplified way you do, where the premise is that approaching men is easy and women are just lazy for not doing it. When feminists say they want women to step away from their traditionally passive role, they’re fighting against, not for, the inequality you mentioned. When feminists say women should have the opportunity to focus more on their own desires, and less on whether or not men desire them, they’re fighting against it.

And it’s the same when they oppose the idea that men are uncontrollable horndogs, or when they speak out against slut-shaming. All of that is, ultimately, part of breaking down the barriers preventing women from taking the initiative. Sure, if you believe approaching men is easy for women, that not approaching anyone even when you actually want to is a privilege, or that women are just lazy, it’s obvious why you wouldn’t see it. But if you feel that way, most feminists are probably going to consider your attitude part of the problem, so naturally, they’re not going to fall all over themselves to agree with you.

Actually… My point is that men don’t harass women on purpose, and that women most of the time label something harassment when its not.

I know. My point is that you mention your wish to have more women approach men in a context where it doesn’t relate to the topic. It’s just something you would like, you present no concrete way in which it would prevent women from being afraid.

A lesbian Journalist wrote a book where she dressed as a man, and tried living as a man. One of the experiences dating as a man. Approaching and asking out women was by far the most shocking thing to her and entirely changed how she viewed dating and approaching and got an entirely new understanding and compassion for men.

I know the book. Considering that as a woman, she had not been prepared for it at all, that she wasn’t (in my opinion) particularly attractive as a man, and that she was basically looking to pick up one-night stands or potential girlfriends without having even met them before, I’m not surprised. I’ve met most of the men I’ve had romantic relationships to through mutual friends or interests, rather than going somewhere to hope to pick up someone to date. Whatever concerns I have with the way picking up in bars sucks, I’m more concerned with the way the pickup-people are acting like anything outside bars or dating services is not a valid part of the dating scene.

Well none of that exists in my country. Yet women still treat shy guys as creepy, and still have the label “creepy” and women still don’t approach men, and men are opting out of dating entirely, and women are frustrated (i have dozens of single female friends crying to me about how there are no men left).

I doubt that. I have been in a violent relationship, and the kind of support my violent ex got from Nice Guys was genuinely creepy and sick, to the point where he even had to tell some of them to stop pretending that him slamming me into a wall, choking me, and threatening to rape me was somehow excusable.

That’s one of the reasons I avoid Nice Guys like the plague now, and even if I got better at approaching guys I were interested in, I still wouldn’t approach the type of guy who’re most likely to complain about it. The last thing I need to hear is that what happened to me was really a case of an extreme injustice against men, or have some amateur try to use a psychological study about dating to ‘prove’ that women deliberately go after sociopaths (and if you hadn’t already decided how to interpret it, we might be able to talk about why it’s false).

If your sexually unsuccessful friends have the same attitudes towards dating as you do, women are not mistakenly labelling them creeps, they actually posses many character traits that plenty of women, like me, would prefer to stay away from. If women are avoiding your friends, it might be that their instincts, in this case, are actually spot on, and they know from his attitude that they would not be compatible. That you’re able to avoid this could be more a testament to you having found ways to compensate for it, than your friends possessing anything of value to these women.

The point being that, your whole hypothesis is built on women actually wanting the guys they don’t approach and are creeped out by, and that it is a failure on their part to not hook up with more of these guys, instead of being repulsed by them. But plenty of women don’t actually want this type of guy, and would prefer if he kept away and didn’t constantly bring up psychological studies, which he didn’t have the education to properly interpret, out of context, to show that women are to blame for whatever bad things happen to them, due to not being mind readers. And if I’m creeped out by such guys, I’ll consider it a blessing, because then I might not make the mistakes I did in my first abusive relationship.

“””Because it’s brought up to silence women. It’s rarely brought up just because the guy or girl in question thought it could be a good idea, it’s made into a condition before guys will even consider maybe making the feelings of women into just a small consideration.”””

So you’re accusing me of trying to silence women? That’s incredibly rude, as well as trying to mind-read.

I can genuinely say I’m not trying to “silence women” by suggesting female empowerment in initiation. We have two choices here… If you believe that (and u read into several things I said and projected many negative traits into me), then there is nothing I can continue to say and no point in me discussing anything if u see everything through that filter, and this conversation is over.

No, as you could see from my post, I said you brought it up without specifying why it would help. The topic here is creepiness, not who’s taking the sexual initiative, so unless you have some reason for why women would feel less creeped out by men overstepping their boundaries if they asked more men out themselves, it just comes across as a general attack. Especially in light of how you described women as lazy, and refused (and still do) to acknowledge that a lot of what feminists are talking about is connected to women taking the initiative.

And in regards to reading things into what you said, there’s no need. We’re not ideologically compatible until you change your view (because I wont change mine in this regard), and that’s really all there is to it. Quoting one of those sociopath studies like you did is a no-go for me, and always will be. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk though, it just means we come from different places.

It seems to me that there are two discussions about “creep” going on. One has to do with making judgments about well intentioned guys who have problems with timing, possibly related to wanting very, very much not to be “that guy.” That would be “Nice Guy as Sensitive New Age Guy.” And sometimes such folks bend over backwards so much that they fall on their face. Often, in fact.

But the other sense of “creep” has to do with women’s nonverbal spidey senses, which would be “Nice Guy as I dunno but I’m not really comfortable here.” And a Sensitive New Age Guy I would like absolutely to affirm women’s duty to themselves to prioritize self-protection against someone they’re not comfortable with, for whatever reason. Even if it’s not a “good” reason.

And — advice to het men — if you feel that you have set off a woman’s “creepdar” in error, don’t argue with her in the moment about it — or she will not have been in error after all. Just go, try to understand the situation, and if there is some lesson for one’s future social interaction, try to apply it, that is all.

I thought this was pretty clear in my original article, but it seems like it needs to be said, so here goes:

The intent of my writing is never, ever, ever to pressure anyone into being sexual in ways they don’t like, or to force anyone into situations where they feel uncomfortable, or to make anyone feel as though they can’t set boundaries.

Too many responses to this article have consisted of men insisting that women should change their boundaries to suit the men in question, or should force themselves to act in ways that make them uncomfortable, or should be sexual in ways they don’t like. I will not engage those claims. They are wrong and I want nothing to do with them.

I’m feeling severe burnout towards discussion of men who are romantically unsuccessful right now, so I probably won’t be very present in this comment thread unless the topic shifts dramatically. Requests for moderation such as edits will be honored, however.

If it helps to salvage any of the discussion, the subject of how to approach men became the centerpoint of an interaction that I had last night, and I think that it illustrated a way in which a “how do men want to be approached?” discussion can go the right way.

The way that we ended up handling it was by my framing it as a hypothetical, with liberal doses of humor — talking about Lance Ericksson III, Prince of Whales, his issues, and his responses; guessing at what he might be thinking, communicating with him through intermittent (and dramatically played) psychic connections, etc. Making the whole thing into a game, and illustrating things like indirect suggestion, hinting, etc. (things that we’d discussed more directly earlier on, as what would make it comfortable) through narrative play. The use of which was, itself, an illustration, or introduction, of its own.

Doing that allowed us to create a kind of guided course: a way of illustrating how I’d like to be approached, in the form of a fictional world, and encouraging her to move through it as she chose. Something within which she could experiment with ways to approach, and get feedback on how they were playing out, but without much risk of overt rejection or embarrassing false steps. As she got a feel for working within the story, she was able to move it toward more obvious overtures, then toward physical escalation — something that she said that she wasn’t confident enough to do earlier on, but that worked out comfortably (and, needless to say, quite pleasantly) once she’d been able to rehearse it, in various ways, through that narrative play.

What was particularly interesting about it was that, during that process, I was able to pick up on the signals where she would have wanted me to escalate. They just ended up playing out along the lines of “I’ve gotten the message, and here’s what I’d do if I were acting it out. But I’m not the one approaching, so it’s your turn to do what I’d do, instead.” And that allowed me to get a sense of how she might have reacted if I’d made those moves myself, being able to experience them by reflection.

If I’d simply encouraged her to approach, though, instead of taking a more participatory perspective — and one that addressed what I already knew, through experience, of its difficulties, and was aimed at helping to alleviate the discomfort — I doubt that things would have worked out nearly as well. Things could very well have become massively uncomfortable for us both.

Point being: I think that being approached can help to address the issues being discussed here, but the way of achieving that requires more than asserting that it would have a positive effect. The way in which it’s done, with whom it’s done, and why it’s done — all of those elements are vital.

Working as an editor in porn for the last year and a half and interacting a whole lot with the mostly “normative”, heterosexual male subscribers on our website’s messageboards has given me something of a different viewpoint of male sexuality and some of what you’ve said here reflects my own thoughts, you’re good at doing that!

Bah anyway, I don’t really have time to engage in the conversations going on here in depth but just wanted to thank you because it’s obvious you put a lot of time and effort into your blog entries and I really appreciate your perspecitve.

As someone who
a) is genuinely sensitive and considerate,
b) never approached by women, and
c) identified as a creep at the drop of a hat, despite
d) being popular, respected, and successful enough in every other social milieu (where potential for intimacy or affection are non-issues),
and thus, if I am honest,
e) having become too needy and starved over the years to enter into new relationships with reasonable/fair expectations,
f) I have entirely given up.

I am commenting only to express heartfelt appreciation for the sympathy and understanding you have expressed in this post. You’re right if you’re guessing/implying that it’s a terrible problem that probably ruins a lot of good men. I hope for others’ sake that the benefits of your analysis will propagate. Thank you for reaching and sharing your point of view

Fernando: No, I wasn’t making any kind of reference. The “I can smell your pussy” incident actually happened, and it came from a random guy who didn’t know me and had no way of knowing that I go by the name Clarisse.

I’ve been thinking about it, and I don’t think the analogy to slut-shaming is really fitting. Looking up the word slut and creep in the dictionary, they both have two meanings. The first meaning of slut is a dirty, slovenly woman, and the first meaning of creep is a weird, introverted, or obnoxious person. The second meaning of slut is an immoral woman or prostitute, and the second meaning for creep is an eerie or creepy person. I believe that in both cases, the second meaning is the one most often referred to. There can be elements of the first, but they aren’t the central part of the slur.

In the case of slut, the whole concept is useless. There is nothing wrong with a woman (or anyone else for that matter) having multiple sexual partners and lots of casual sex, and condemning them for it is unfair, end of story. And if she does something that’s truly objectionable, there are lots of other concepts to describe it more accurately.

If a woman cheats on her boyfriend/girlfriend, she’s unfaithful. If she doesn’t make it clear to her sexual partners that she’s into casual sex and that they shouldn’t expect a deeper commitment, she’s disingenuous. If she doesn’t use protection, she’s irresponsible. If she has sex with someone against their will or with people who’re unable to give consent, or if she has unprotected sex but tells her partners that it’s alright to not use protection because she hasn’t been with anyone else…. well, there are stronger words to use about that than slut.

Slut as a concept is only about shaming women for doing something which everybody here (hopefully) agree they shouldn’t be shamed for. Creep, on the other hand, refers to something which is actually problematic, namely making others feel unsafe. Creeping means, among other things, to crawl close to the ground like a reptile or insect, to sneak up on people, and to approach inconspicuously and insidiously. To be creepy means “having or causing a creeping sensation of the skin, as from horror or fear”, to quote the dictionary.

More importantly, the concept wasn’t invented because people (and that includes feminists) had a problem with men doing certain things, and wanted to shame them for it, like slut is. It’s just a way to describe something which is scary in an insidious and less than direct way. A raging bear is scary, the serial killer in a horror movie is creepy, especially if he (or she) always lurks just out of range.

We could abandon the word slut and everything related to it, and still have all the vocabulary we need to describe inappropriate sexual acts (see above), but take away creep, creepy, and related terms, and women (and men for that matter, since male horror fans at least use similar words) will just say “he’s scary” or “he makes me feel unsafe”. Unlike words to condemn women for having an active sex life, it’s not unreasonable to ask to have words to describe feelings of dread.

That’s not to say those words shouldn’t be used carefully (which I believe was part of Clarisse’s point). They shouldn’t be used as general slurs by people who aren’t genuinely disconcerted. And even people who are disconcerted should examine their reasons for being so before getting judgemental. It’s definitely possible to creep someone out without intending to, and in many cases, giving people the benefit of the doubt is the most fair thing to do.

But expecting women (or men) to never be afraid, never feel uncomfortable, never perceive themselves to be threatened or harassed (even when they are), never feel that their personal boundaries are being violated, and just never ave any feelings that could lead to them finding someone creepy, and simply accept everything men do without expressing the slightest discomfort, is grossly unfair.

But expecting women (or men) to never be afraid, never feel uncomfortable, never perceive themselves to be threatened or harassed (even when they are), never feel that their personal boundaries are being violated, and just never ave any feelings that could lead to them finding someone creepy, and simply accept everything men do without expressing the slightest discomfort, is grossly unfair.

I agree with this. But given how unclear the word “creep” is, maybe it’s just about finding better vocabulary for discussing actual boundary violations and gross behavior.

Also, I am a Dominant woman who has a submissive (and *gasp* bisexual)husband, but I am a sex-positive ifeminist/MRA as well. I am very proud of him being open about his sexuality.

“The intent of my writing is never, ever, ever to pressure anyone into being sexual in ways they don’t like, or to force anyone into situations where they feel uncomfortable, or to make anyone feel as though they can’t set boundaries.”

I share these ideas, there are a LOT of things that I generally have no interest in trying but my husband would love to try. I am very glad ny husband doesn’t try to make me do the things that I don’t like the idea of.

AB:More importantly, the concept wasn’t invented because people (and that includes feminists) had a problem with men doing certain things, and wanted to shame them for it, like slut is.
Its not so much the invention of the word but rather the way its used that I think is the problem (or at least that’s what I think). Like the word patriarchy maybe its definition has gotten so overblown that its lost its meaning.

Yeah, I think what’s happened is that women learn (likely at a pretty young age) a familiar but vague feeling of discomfort as the center of unwanted attention, often from actual creeps, but then ascribe “creepiness” to many more males who project the unwanted attention, and thus the term becomes more recklessly/blithely assigned, devalued, and more casually destructive.

“Its not so much the invention of the word but rather the way its used that I think is the problem (or at least that’s what I think). Like the word patriarchy maybe its definition has gotten so overblown that its lost its meaning.”

I don’t think it’s lost it’s meaning. It’s a sub-category of the word scary. It can be scary to start in a new school, and to go to war. A horror movie can be scary, and so can knowing there’s a real murderer loose in one’s neighbourhood.

People will say that the rhetoric of Holocaust deniers is scary, but they will also say that it’s scary how some people can be stupid enough to believe Michael Jackson hadn’t had any cosmetic surgery.

The same with patriarchy, it’s a system where fathers, or father figures, are the highest authority, and men are subsequently held to be above women. It can happen in many degrees, and be implemented both legally and culturally, but the meaning is clearer than a lot of other words.

And to get back to the comparison to slut, I think the way you talk about it is a pretty good illustration of why it doesn’t work. You (hopefully) wouldn’t say that the problem with slut is that it’s overblown, and that reserving it for girls who had more than one sexual partner a week would solve the problem.

Tremelo:

“Yeah, I think what’s happened is that women learn (likely at a pretty young age) a familiar but vague feeling of discomfort as the center of unwanted attention, often from actual creeps, but then ascribe “creepiness” to many more males who project the unwanted attention, and thus the term becomes more recklessly/blithely assigned, devalued, and more casually destructive.”

The problem for me is that since very few people call themselves creeps, everybody will argue that the word is used unfairly. I think needy guys can be very creepy. The way some guys will hit on you, and just continue to talk to you, refusing to give you a break, completely ignoring that you’re uncomfortable and that there is no chemistry whatsoever, just going through the motions.

Guys who want a woman, any woman, and don’t give a shit about who she is. Guys who project. Guys who’re convinced that because they have labelled themselves nice, they really don’t need to actually do the stuff anyone else want them to.

That creeps me out, to feel that a someone have created their own fantasy without my influence, placed me in it, and seems to play it out without any consideration for its imaginary nature.

AB:And to get back to the comparison to slut, I think the way you talk about it is a pretty good illustration of why it doesn’t work. You (hopefully) wouldn’t say that the problem with slut is that it’s overblown, and that reserving it for girls who had more than one sexual partner a week would solve the problem.
I don’t recall comparing creep to slut but maybe I did and don’t recall? And its not like I said that no man ever fits the description of creepy (hell I’ve come across women I’d call creepy). I’m thinking more along the lines of something like presuming that a man that enjoys being around kids must in it to hurt those kids. Yes there are men out there that are kids for the purpose of harming them but that doesn’t make it okay to toss that label around on any/all random men that are around kids.

The same with patriarchy, it’s a system where fathers, or father figures, are the highest authority, and men are subsequently held to be above women. It can happen in many degrees, and be implemented both legally and culturally, but the meaning is clearer than a lot of other words.
The reason I say that word is overused is because frankly I think that when you actually look at the gender imbalances at work (instead of just blanketly declaring that men hold the advantage over women) I don’t men/fathers or whatever are coming out as well people say. And I even question that men, as a class, are really the highest authority. There are more than enough men in the middle and the bottom that will tell you that those few at the top (which is another odd thing, the men at the top despite being numerically few are still held up as the representation of the entire gender in order to back up generalizations like “men as a class have power over women as a class”). That’s not to say that men have no power or that there are no patriarchal forces at work, it just seems like the people who can’t write a blog post without using the word patriarchy are either not seeing the whole picture are throwing a blanket over the parts that don’t vibe with their arguments.

“That creeps me out, to feel that a someone have created their own fantasy …, placed me in it, and seems to play it out without any consideration for its imaginary nature.”

But do you see?, that can happen in the other direction too. A guy can be interested or even merely friendly, and quick to back away if the mutual interest doesn’t seem to be there, and still branded “a creep,” by exactly the mechanism you describe, a fantasy that reflects more about the subject than the target.

I’m NOT denying the existence of actual creeps, surely not (I’ve been hit on by some gay guys who were certainly creepy, and others that certainly weren’t), but I DO think the assessment can be reached often based on an internal sensation rather than a factual reality. (I.e., some straight guys would think ANY gay guy hitting on them (or even being friendly) was “a creep,” the same awkward language/blaming to express their internal discomfort.)

“I don’t recall comparing creep to slut but maybe I did and don’t recall? And its not like I said that no man ever fits the description of creepy (hell I’ve come across women I’d call creepy).”

I didn’t say you did, just that it was an illustration of why the comparison doesn’t work.

“The reason I say that word is overused is because frankly I think that when you actually look at the gender imbalances at work (instead of just blanketly declaring that men hold the advantage over women) I don’t men/fathers or whatever are coming out as well people say.”

Whoever said being on top was always an advantage? I haven’t heard about that before, except from people saying that they couldn’t be on top because they had some problem. Several Disney princesses have rebelled against their privileged life because those privileges came with certain limitations, and while the stories have undoubtedly been romanticised the principle is sound.

One of the classics read by almost all Danish students, Stolen Spring (a more direct translation would be The Neglected Spring), is about a group of primarily upper and middle-class boys in a prestigious school in the 30s, and how the teachers were abusive, the parents demanding, and the boys all stressed out under the weight of bullying and overly high expectations, and how it often leads to unfulfilling lives. It’s even written by a communist.

It’s entirely possible, even probable, to live a happier life closer to the bottom of society. But that doesn’t mean it’s not still in the bottom. Status-wise, men come out on top, but that doesn’t necessarily make them happier.

In fact, being unable to deal with a loss of control, and feeling that their family is an extension of their own accomplishments and social rank, is a frequently cited motivation for men who kill their children and (typically) ex-wives. It doesn’t mean the attitude isn’t patriarchal, but it definitely didn’t help the men in question.

“And I even question that men, as a class, are really the highest authority. There are more than enough men in the middle and the bottom that will tell you that those few at the top (which is another odd thing, the men at the top despite being numerically few are still held up as the representation of the entire gender in order to back up generalizations like “men as a class have power over women as a class”).”

That might be because the people you’re arguing with/against aren’t saying that the men on top is always a direct advantage for men (though having your boss, political representation, doctor/therapist, experts and authorities represented in the media, and the police be more culturally similar to you and identify with you easier tends to be an advantage), they’re saying that the men on top got to be on top at least partly because they’re men.

Statistically speaking, men are wealthier and better represented in pretty much all areas of power (business, politics, arts, the media, the legal system, the military, the clergy). That doesn’t mean those men are happier or don’t have problems, and it doesn’t mean you can’t find plenty of men who aren’t influential or well off either.

But then again, if you went back in time, you could also find impoverished British nobility put out of influence and wealthy commoners with great political careers, so it’s not exactly an argument against the existence of a class system.

Whoever said being on top was always an advantage? I haven’t heard about that before, except from people saying that they couldn’t be on top because they had some problem.
While you yourself have not that’s the impression that some feminists seem to give.

Status-wise, men come out on top, but that doesn’t necessarily make them happier.
Nor does it mean that being a man means coming on top. Thanks for noticing.

That might be because the people you’re arguing with/against aren’t saying that the men on top is always a direct advantage for men (though having your boss, political representation, doctor/therapist, experts and authorities represented in the media, and the police be more culturally similar to you and identify with you easier tends to be an advantage), they’re saying that the men on top got to be on top at least partly because they’re men.
Actually I agree that there are cases when being men did help them. My argument is with people who make the assertion that that status somehow translates down to those of us in the middle and on the bottom (as in making blanket statements like “to be male is to be privileged” or saying the society is set to favoring men). Or the seemingly complex arguments feminist go through in order to explain away the advantages that women have. If those people would quit trying to hold me personally and individually responsible for things I had nothing to do with other than sharing gender I would be more receptive. If those people would quite trying to use my gender as justification to close me out of the gender discourse I’d be more receptive.

“But do you see?, that can happen in the other direction too. A guy can be interested or even merely friendly, and quick to back away if the mutual interest doesn’t seem to be there, and still branded “a creep,” by exactly the mechanism you describe, a fantasy that reflects more about the subject than the target.”

And then he brands her as a jerk/bitch because she deserves it. Or at least he could do it, and considering how often it’s done (at least the bitch variety), it’s not like it’s socially unacceptable, especially if he really didn’t do anything to provoke the label.

People who’re mean and abusive provoke negative reactions. If they’re popular they might get away with more, but they’re rarely going to escape all consequences. My point is that while the girl calling the guy a creep (the mean/abusive action) will at least acknowledge that what she’s doing isn’t very nice, the vast majority of guys who’re creeping girls out will refuse to even consider the possibility that they’re doing anything but being nice. And that makes it extremely hard to counter.

“Actually I agree that there are cases when being men did help them. My argument is with people who make the assertion that that status somehow translates down to those of us in the middle and on the bottom (as in making blanket statements like “to be male is to be privileged” or saying the society is set to favoring men). Or the seemingly complex arguments feminist go through in order to explain away the advantages that women have. If those people would quit trying to hold me personally and individually responsible for things I had nothing to do with other than sharing gender I would be more receptive. If those people would quite trying to use my gender as justification to close me out of the gender discourse I’d be more receptive.”

It doesn’t have to translate down, it’s starts at the bottom. That’s the whole idea, the men on top just represent advantages that have been there from the start. Sorry if I’ve gotten the wrong impression, but you make it sound like there’s only something like 1% of people on top, and everybody else is just one big blur of normalcy.

I read somewhere that in about a third of all families the woman was now making the most money, but that still means that a man is twice as likely to make more money than his wife (and if I had to make a guess, I would also say that the difference in income is quite possibly smaller in families where the woman is making more), even if he’s not on top of society.

A part-time writer whose sex helps him get published (typically, stories by and about men are considered gender neutral and more easily marketable than their female equivalent) is nowhere near the top, but nor is he completely unaffected by the same forces that put the men on top where they are.

A male musician who’s perceived as more competent because of his sex is still at an advantage even if he never gets an international breakthrough. As is a man who can work at a construction site without hearing demeaning jokes about his sex etc. etc.

And of course, when a woman isn’t shamed or made to feel guilty for taking parental leave to the same extent as a man, or is allowed to wear make-up without being shamed that’s also an advantage, which is usually there regardless of her place in society (though I think career women are sometimes punished harshly). But the overall culture, which grants men and women their advantages and disadvantages, is still a patriarchal one.

And saying that we live in such a culture, and get a different treatment because of our sex regardless of what we personally do, is not blaming anyone, it’s asking them to take a social responsibility. Those things are not done out of guilt, they’re done out of a sense of justice.

It’s about saying that while you aren’t always responsible for the way people treat you, the way you’re raised, and the opportunities you have, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to change them.

Sorry if I’ve gotten the wrong impression, but you make it sound like there’s only something like 1% of people on top, and everybody else is just one big blur of normalcy.
Not a 99%-1% split but in the end the havenots outnumber the haves. For every man on Capital Hill there are 50 men collecting garbage somewhere that we’ll never know the names of.

That writer and that musician might have such an advantage. Problem is you never hear the might. All you hear how they got where they are because they’re men or how they haven’t earned their respect they’re just part of the boys club. And that construction actually probably does hear sexist jokes that cut against men. But if he’s smart (and my smart I mean “what’s to avoid ridicule”) he’ll either “go with the flow”, “take it like man”, “man up”, “suck it up”, etc….

And saying that we live in such a culture, and get a different treatment because of our sex regardless of what we personally do, is not blaming anyone, it’s asking them to take a social responsibility. Those things are not done out of guilt, they’re done out of a sense of justice.

It’s about saying that while you aren’t always responsible for the way people treat you, the way you’re raised, and the opportunities you have, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to change them.
And those are things that I can agree with however that’s not the context I often hear them in. When a woman says they’ll give a guy the time of day when he fixes rape culture I’d say that an attempt at holding him personally responsible for it. Basically she doesn’t know the guy well enough to know if he’s okay but she knows enough about him (his gender) to know that he had something to do with rape culture.

When the injustices of the society are held over my head as a criteria that I’m expected to fix in order to get my voice heard that’s an attempt at trying to hold me personally responsible for something despite that person not even knowing. When people talk that “men are the ones that started all the wars so it fitting they are the ones that mostly die” nonsense I tend to tune them out. They don’t want equality they want revenge.

And of course, when a woman isn’t shamed or made to feel guilty for taking parental leave to the same extent as a man, or is allowed to wear make-up without being shamed that’s also an advantage, which is usually there regardless of her place in society (though I think career women are sometimes punished harshly). But the overall culture, which grants men and women their advantages and disadvantages, is still a patriarchal one.
I’m still not so sure about that (especially that paternal leave where here in the States its almost considered a joke for a dad to want to take time off with a newborn child). I recall a former coworker of mine who when he took time off for his kids the other women in the office would comment, “Why doesn’t his wife do that?”.

But anyway what I’m getting at is that I’m not certain when people make those conclusions they are really looking at everything or is they are just looking at the disadvantages of women vs. the advantages of men and declaring men the winners.

2) “Male sexuality should be approached from the concept of pleasure rather than accomplishment,”

I agree. One big problem that I see is that most single sexually-starved men don’t fully explore adult entertainment (porn, strip clubs, sex clubs, sex workers, etc…). Adult entertainers are generally attractive and they’re experts at giving sexual pleasure. AND it’s clearly strictly sexual. There’s still this weird shame when it comes to paying for it. Like only losers pay. But we should know by now that that’s not true (pro athletes, actors, and top politicians pay too).
It shouldn’t matter how you get your sexual pleasure as long as it’s not “predatory or non-consensual”. Once you start getting that sexual pleasure you’ll no longer interpret random eye contact or a smile as a sign that a woman wants to have sex with you. You may get a few “are you gay?” type of questions but that’s about it.

“Creeping means, among other things, to crawl close to the ground like a reptile or insect, to sneak up on people, and to approach inconspicuously and insidiously. To be creepy means “having or causing a creeping sensation of the skin, as from horror or fear”, to quote the dictionary.”

I suppose it’s pertinent that the vast majority of creeping reptiles and insects are completely harmless to humans, but nonetheless are treated as things to be killed on sight. I think we need a post on Schrödinger’s Arachnid to explain to the Daddy longlegs why people are so afraid of them.

No, as you could see from my post, I said you brought it up without specifying why it would help.

I explained my theory on why I think it would help 3 times, and you missed all 3 of them. Here’s my theory…

Number 1: If women approach more they would

a) Feel what its like to approach, and how the actual approach-context itself makes u act weird/awkward

b) This in itself would build into women a better calibration of distinguishing genuine creepiness and plain awkwardness. My claim (and of many others) is that most women, perceive creepiness most of the time, when its really awkwardness, not creepiness.

Number 2: If women distinguished awkwardness from creepiness, and only punished the latter, it would increase the dating pool of good men and reduce misogyny.

A lot of misogyny is created by men being mistreated and falsely labelled as creeps.

Number 3: If more good men had good experiences approaching, and not be mislabeled as creeps (in cases when they’re genuinely not), more of them would become comfortable approaching, and eventually the majority of men approaching women will be good guys. Right now the market is dominated by a-holes, who hit on 50 women a night/day, and don’t care about being blown-off, called a creep (because they are truly creeps, so they don’t care).

And that’s a complete misconception and a myth. The most popular, hot, lusted over men who are popular and do awesomely in every other social area of their life, when they approach can and are deemed creepy.

And you haven’t even answered my point, namely that the kind of behaviour that comes across as creepy is usually exhibited by sexually unsuccessful guys, and that they wouldn’t become sexually successful just because women started to approach men more, because they wouldn’t be the kind of men most women approached anyway

This is something that women don’t tend get, having never approached themselves. Approach confidence is completely separate from other social confidence. In fact, its a complete myth that they’re tied. You can have a guy that’s the most successful guy in his peer group, take him out to a party where he doesn’t know people, have him approach women, and he will be deemed creepy.

Approaching is a skill. I can take a complete a-hole who nobody loves in any other area of his life, and get him good at the skill of approaching, to where he can approach any woman, anywhere and charm her in those first 10 minutes… But he’s a loser in every other area in life. So again, its a myth that women buy into that approaching is any kind of a determination of what a person is like.

To give you a parallel… To judge a man’s character by his approach, is like judging a woman’s intelligence by her weight… Its a complete non-sequitur, yet some people do this. They stereotype people by weight, and assign goodness, intelligence, health etc to people of less weight. A person can eat crap and junk all day and never exercise… and have a six-pack… and then someone can eat all the right foods, exercise for hours a day, and still be chubby. That’s what approaching is like… Its a poor way to determine things.

she had not been prepared for it at all, that she wasn’t (in my opinion) particularly attractive as a man

Wouldn’t this prove the point that anti-creep-label people make though? In other words that women use it a lot of times to distinguish unattractive guys, not necessarily bad-intentioned guys or what not.

Let’s just be honest about this. Is the creep label only used by a never-wrong female intuition to only insult and punish guys who have deep bad character flaws?

If that is true, then a man’s looks should have nothing to do with it, yet you pointed to the lesbian reporter’s looks as a reason she had the experiences she had when approaching as a man.

As for “not being ready”… What does that mean? If this instinct is apparently never wrong, and it just reads deep into the approacher’s intentions, then what would “readiness” have to do with it? Readiness is something you need for a skill, not for being who you are. How did she need to be ready to simply talk to someone and be herself (the thing women claim a man should do, to fare well with women)?

b) This in itself would build into women a better calibration of distinguishing genuine creepiness and plain awkwardness. My claim (and of many others) is that most women, perceive creepiness most of the time, when its really awkwardness, not creepiness.

And my claim is that many men (like you) want to define what’s good for women for them. You decide that some men are deserving of a good fuck from attractive women, and some are not, and then you expect women to reward the men you find deserving. The thought that a guy you have deemed deserving wouldn’t actually be a very satisfying partner for most women doesn’t occur to you, and if it does, you’ll be quick to claim it’s women’s fault.

Number 2: If women distinguished awkwardness from creepiness, and only punished the latter, it would increase the dating pool of good men and reduce misogyny.

A lot of misogyny is created by men being mistreated and falsely labelled as creeps.

So misogyny is women’s own fault for failing to fuck the right men. You’re right, Good Men like you are so unfairly labelled creeps (and if this board had a rolleyes smiley I would have inserted that now).

Right now the market is dominated by a-holes, who hit on 50 women a night/day, and don’t care about being blown-off, called a creep (because they are truly creeps, so they don’t care).

If by ‘market’ you mean the bar scene where all men want to hook up (because dating women they actually know just isn’t appealing), then you’re probably right. But why is it a problem for a man to hit on 50 women? Since we’re talking strangers in a bar, it’s not like he knows any of them, he’ll have to do quite a bit of flirting to get a sense of who they are and what they want, so in the stage where he’s just trying to start a flirt, one is a good as the other.

And that’s a complete misconception and a myth. The most popular, hot, lusted over men who are popular and do awesomely in every other social area of their life, when they approach can and are deemed creepy.

So your issue isn’t actually that Good Men can’t get into relationships, it’s just that some of them make women uncomfortable when they’re trying to pick them up at bars, and that’s women’s fault?

This is something that women don’t tend get, having never approached themselves.

Yeah right. Women never get that feeling of total fear and embarrassment because they ended up making ass of themselves when facing a cute guy. I’m so glad I have Good Men like you around to tell me that, I would never have figured that out myself if Good Men weren’t here to tell me how I feel (and this is the part where I’m seriously considering importing a rolleyes smiley just for the occasion).

A person can eat crap and junk all day and never exercise… and have a six-pack… and then someone can eat all the right foods, exercise for hours a day, and still be chubby. That’s what approaching is like… Its a poor way to determine things.

No it’s not. If I’m attracted to six-packs, I don’t care how guys get them, because it’s their six-pack I’m attracted to, not their diet or exercise. You can bitch about how a guy is attractive to women without deserving it all that you want, but that doesn’t change that he’s attractive. Not that a six-pack is everything, my own boyfriend is overweight and I still love him, but I wont lie and claim he wouldn’t look better to me with a six-pack.

You seem to be so caught up in what men deserve that you completely neglect what women deserve. Perhaps women deserve guys who don’t freak them out, perhaps women at bars who’re looking to hook up deserve guys with good hook-up skills (if that wasn’t what they wanted, they probably wouldn’t look to hook up in bars in the first place), perhaps women deserve guys who respect them enough not to assume they must, per default, be looking for a Good Man to settle down with (in a bar of all places) just because that’s what women are supposed to want.

What the guys who try to pick women up in bars, only to become (even more) misogynistic when they’re rejected, because they think “I’m really nice inside, I deserve to have women regard me favourably”, is the equivalent of them walking onto a football stadium with the attitude “I have a really good singing voice, I deserve to score”, and then get insulted when they’re left out of the game.

If you want your singing voice to matter, join a choir, if you want to play football, learn the game and accept that you might sustain a couple of injuries playing it now and then, if you want your niceness to matter, get to know women in your everyday life (preferably because you like them, not just because you’re looking to get laid), and if you want to score at bars, learn to approach women in a way that doesn’t freak them out, and accept that they’re not mind readers who know how you really are inside and that you can’t expect to be judged by anything else than what you show.

And finally, stop acting like a guy is nice to women just because you’ve decided that he is. Women have the right to decide who they’re comfortable with themselves. I’ve met several Nice Guys that I didn’t like. In fact, I don’t like you. If I were to give you a chance at picking me up, because you’re not really creepy, you’re just awkward, I would probably progress from just not liking to you to outright despising you.

Some people just aren’t compatible, and I have found that I’m not compatible with most ‘Nice Guys’ at all. For some reason, I’m fine with leaving them alone to be with whoever wants to be with them, but they seem to have convinced themselves that because they have personally declared themselves to be Nice Guys, all women have a duty to consider them as potential mates. In truth, they’re terrible mates for practically all but the most masochistic women (in the non-S&M sense), because they lack the basic empathy to understand that other people aren’t required to feel well treated just because they’re personally convinced that they’re treating other people well.

Wouldn’t this prove the point that anti-creep-label people make though? In other words that women use it a lot of times to distinguish unattractive guys, not necessarily bad-intentioned guys or what not.

No, because your objection to the word creep has no relation to what Clarisse is referring to. She is referring to men feeling bad about themselves and their own sexuality because they’re labelled creeps, and being unfairly judged as predatory or toxic when they’re open about their sexuality. You are talking about not getting laid.

Clarisse even referred to a guy who’s everything you seem to believe women should avoid (a guy who directly and shamelessly offers S&M sex to a woman, rather than being shy or awkward about it) as the type of person who’s unfairly labelled a creep, and she added that she had no obligation to accept his offer (to “give him a chance”, as you might put it), she just shouldn’t have judged him so harshly for it.

The author in question has more reason to fear a rejection than a lot of men, because she’s not very attractive as a man (at least if women share my taste, which I have little way of knowing). I know guys who can walk into a bar, and count on women either approaching them, or at least checking them out so that they know there’s an interest before they even approach. Those men have less reason to feel anxious than men who have to approach women who haven’t even glanced at them before.

Let’s just be honest about this. Is the creep label only used by a never-wrong female intuition to only insult and punish guys who have deep bad character flaws?

Whoever talked about a never-wrong female intuition? There’s no doubt that in screening for guys who’re potentially abusive/dangerous, some decent guys get sorted out. But honestly, so what? Women don’t flirt, date, or have sex to give otherwise unlucky guys a chance to have an intimate relationship with a woman, they do it because it’s supposed to feel good. If a woman gets enough attention from guys she feels immediately attracted to, she has no reason to look for more, she just has to not be an ass to the guys she’s rejecting.

If that is true, then a man’s looks should have nothing to do with it, yet you pointed to the lesbian reporter’s looks as a reason she had the experiences she had when approaching as a man.

A man’s looks have a lot to do with whether or not approaching is easy, because a handsome man is more likely to be able to hit on women who’re already interested (if he reads their body language right), and thus less likely to feel like he’s making a fool of himself or fearing that he’s overstepped anyone’s boundaries by approaching.

As for “not being ready”… What does that mean? If this instinct is apparently never wrong, and it just reads deep into the approacher’s intentions, then what would “readiness” have to do with it? Readiness is something you need for a skill, not for being who you are. How did she need to be ready to simply talk to someone and be herself (the thing women claim a man should do, to fare well with women)?

Again you’re only focussing on success, on whether or not the approach is rejected. I’m talking about her feelings. She’s unprepared because she’s grown up as a woman, been discouraged from taking the initiative, and haven’t had male friends who shared that initial stage of awkwardness with her (at least not when it comes to picking up women in bars). Just like I imagine a good deal of men would feel more awkward around babies than most women, because they’ve grown up with babies being something strange that girls were into, not objects of affection.

Interestingly enough, the lesbian reporter actually had plenty of success with women. She writes about a lot of dates, and about having to reveal to women that she’s a woman herself, just as they’re about to take off their clothes. So that’s not actually an argument for why Good Men can’t pick up women at bars because they’re too shy and awkward, because even a chubby lesbian who’s frequently mistaken for a gay man can do it, despite women allegedly only going for alpha males with high testosterone levels.

So misogyny is women’s own fault for failing to fuck the right men.
I don’t think that’s what Alex was trying to say. It seems he was trying to say that there is a difference between being awkward and not knowing what to do and being a jerk. Not a matter of fucking the right men but the response to men. A given woman might be uninterested in a given man for any number of reasons but they don’t all point to creep (such as his awkwardness, he may be awkward but awkward does not equal creep).

If by ‘market’ you mean the bar scene where all men want to hook up (because dating women they actually know just isn’t appealing), then you’re probably right. But why is it a problem for a man to hit on 50 women?

Or because the women they know are taken. Or the women they know are all close to their recent ex and it wouldn’t be fair on her. Or the women they know just aren’t interested. Or are too valuable as friends to risk thinking about in that way. There are lots of very good reasons to go looking for a partner outside your own social circle, and it’s unhelpful, not to mention downright spiteful, to assume that someone’s morally in the wrong for trying it.

As for the hitting on 50 girls, it’s “a problem” because the Nice Guy conception of feminism tends to conflate what’s respectful with what’s nice and fluffy and romantic. Obviously you’re not going to be that bothered who a complete stranger has been chatting to earlier in the evening, or that he’s only going to need thirty seconds to get over you and move on. But it drifts away from the Mills and Boon ideal of asking out one woman and sticking with her. Feminism doesn’t really mind the scatter-gun approach, but good old-fashioned chivalry really does.

A man’s looks have a lot to do with whether or not approaching is easy, because a handsome man is more likely to be able to hit on women who’re already interested (if he reads their body language right), and thus less likely to feel like he’s making a fool of himself or fearing that he’s overstepped anyone’s boundaries by approaching.

On top of that, unwanted sexual interest is always going to be creepier, and most women will probably tolerate a bit more creepy behaviour from someone they fancy than with someone they don’t, even if the approach is identical. Plus there’s something inadvertently creepy about knowing someone wants to have sex with you when you don’t, which obviously hot men cause with less.

I don’t think that’s what Alex was trying to say. It seems he was trying to say that there is a difference between being awkward and not knowing what to do and being a jerk. Not a matter of fucking the right men but the response to men. A given woman might be uninterested in a given man for any number of reasons but they don’t all point to creep (such as his awkwardness, he may be awkward but awkward does not equal creep).

But that’s sort of the point. Women being uninterested in a man, and women thinking a man is a creep, are two different things. If a woman is uncomfortable with a guy, it doesn’t mean the guy is a creep, or that she has the right to label him like that, but it doesn’t mean she’s obliged to give him a chance to prove he would be really pleasant company once she’s gotten to know him better either.

I don’t think it’s the word ‘creep’ that prevents shy men from getting dates, I think it’s that those men either make women uncomfortable, or are just plain unattractive. Of course, it doesn’t make matters any better that women are made to be afraid of men, especially of rejecting them, and the Nice Guy/Bad Boy dichotomy that Alek is using is one of the major reasons for this.

Social awkwardness is also not the only reason someone could get unfairly labelled a creep, sexual forthrightness is another (it is in fact Clarisse’s own example). And men exhibiting that trait are, ironically, more often labelled creeps by self-identified Nice Guys than by women. But I haven’t seen a single male poster care about that, because most of the ones posting here seem to see the word ‘creep’ as being the one thing that stands between good men and the pussy they rightfully deserve, and that’s the extend of it.

And finally, social awkwardness and deliberate boundary violations are not that different. I know quite a few people with Asperger’s Syndrome, and many of them are legitimately afraid of offending others, violating people’s boundaries, and making fools of themselves. Because they know that when you don’t now the social rules, you can easily end up unintentionally breaking them, and it will rarely come across as any different than if you’d broken them intentionally.

But frighteningly, guys who have the privilege of never having a psychologist tell them “You don’t get other people” tend to presume that boundary violations and creepy behaviour is always done intentionally, and that everybody who doesn’t react positively to their behaviour are in the wrong. They dismiss women’s experiences when those experiences don’t line up with their world-view, and when confronted with the idea that maybe their behaviour is making women uncomfortable, their reaction is to say “But I’m the good guy, women should use their magic mind-vision to see that and treat me accordingly, I’m the real victim here”.

AB; If a woman is uncomfortable with a guy, it doesn’t mean the guy is a creep, or that she has the right to label him like that, but it doesn’t mean she’s obliged to give him a chance to prove he would be really pleasant company once she’s gotten to know him better either.
Exactly it doesn’t automatically mean that he is a creep but that doesn’t stop him from being written off as a creep. So why do people toss that word around so freely? It seems like there’s this constant tug of war of people who think that creep is never used incorrectly vs those who think that creep is never used correctly.

I don’t think it’s the word ‘creep’ that prevents shy men from getting dates,…
No not the word itself just what it represents. Which is why (and I think its been said by someone else here before) simply removing that word wouldn’t solve anything but rather all the underlying problems need to be dealt with. From the dealing with the harmful attitudes towards men and women, to the negative behaviors on both sides, and everything else. No this won’t create some utopia where every person that tries their hand at dating will have a 100% success rate, and there will still be actual creeps out there, but I think it will help a lot.

Social awkwardness is also not the only reason someone could get unfairly labelled a creep, sexual forthrightness is another (it is in fact Clarisse’s own example).
Can’t speak for the other guys here but my sexual forthrighness has never been a problem in that regard. In fact it seems that social awkwardness may be just a very common reason for being written off as such.

But frighteningly, guys who have the privilege of never having a psychologist tell them “You don’t get other people” tend to presume that boundary violations and creepy behaviour is always done intentionally, and that everybody who doesn’t react positively to their behaviour are in the wrong. They dismiss women’s experiences when those experiences don’t line up with their world-view, and when confronted with the idea that maybe their behaviour is making women uncomfortable, their reaction is to say “But I’m the good guy, women should use their magic mind-vision to see that and treat me accordingly, I’m the real victim here”.
I don’t think its that cut and dry all the time. I’m sure there are plenty of guys out there who have never spoken with a psychologist that thought about how maybe they might be the problem. The Nice Guys you speak of here don’t become so overnight. Its a shame that some of them may have gotten there by that track but it seems like its become nigh impossible to even entertain the idea that maybe they were done wrong.

are you the same AB who’s commenting on the manliness thread? Because if you are, there really seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the empathy you seem to require and the empathy you’re willing to give.

Compare this –

“If I’m attracted to six-packs, I don’t care how guys get them, because it’s their six-pack I’m attracted to, not their diet or exercise. You can bitch about how a guy is attractive to women without deserving it all that you want, but that doesn’t change that he’s attractive. Not that a six-pack is everything, my own boyfriend is overweight and I still love him, but I wont lie and claim he wouldn’t look better to me with a six-pack.”

– to what you say about how you feel male attraction to certain body types made you feel “less than human”. Just saying.

are you the same AB who’s commenting on the manliness thread? Because if you are, there really seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the empathy you seem to require and the empathy you’re willing to give.

Compare this –

– to what you say about how you feel male attraction to certain body types made you feel “less than human”. Just saying.

If you’re going to make underhanded attacks on me, at least make them clear. I have consistently said that I don’t care so much about which women men are attracted to (though it does bother me how many straight guys it seems find the female body repulsive, but that’s another issue), I care about how they perceive and treat women they’re not attracted to. You have consistently ignored that, treated me in the most patronising way, and assumed that I didn’t mean it, even though practically all my posts to you past a certain point have consisted of “I’m not talking about who people are attracted to”.

Honestly, do you think a guy is a sexist because he’s only attracted to women, and refuse to even consider being attracted to a man who’s trying to be a woman and isn’t to blame for not being one? Or a guy with a fetish for fat women who isn’t attracted to a skinny woman even though she’s eating everything she can? Or someone who likes BDSM who wont have sex with a partner who isn’t really turned on by it or enjoying it, but is really trying to get into it because s/he wants to date someone from the scene? Seriously, when are you people going to get that sex shouldn’t always have to be about rewarding people who attempt to do the right thing, but can be (and should be, for the most part) about finding the people who’re already right for you?

I’m done with you Sam. Please stop responding to any of my posts. I know you’re going to get worried that I don’t receive my daily dose of harassment, but you should be aware right now (if your ability to perceive what’s going on isn’t as limited as your ability to comprehend my posts, or your ability to respect my own word for what I’m trying to say) that people are already dog-piling on me because I’m the only one representing the view I do, and one of the few women to post at all.

Talking to you has nearly succeeded in making me stop trying to express that viewpoint (it is the reason I’ve taken a break posting here recently, and it probably will be the reason if I stop again after this), but I wont let a single patronising idiot do that to me without a fight. So honestly, if you keep it up you’ll probably succeed in getting me banned, because I can’t act civilised when faced with this amount of patronisation, contempt, and underhanded accusations of lying, so I’m mainly posting this to make sure the good (and not so good) people here don’t misunderstand and think I have a problem with them.

Because my issue is with you, and your consistent lack of respect for my right to have my opinion, not the strawman opinion you made up for me and have propagated for days in the face of my explicit request that you stop it. So for the last time: I’m not talking about who people are attracted to but how they treat people they’re not attracted to.

I have done nothing but attempt to understand your point of view. You’re right that it often eludes me. But it also eludes me how you construe several detailed replies engaging your position as “contempt” for your opinion.

“Please stop responding to any of my posts.”

If we both continue to participate in a conversation that is referencing previous contributions, that may be difficult. However, I’ll try to not address any of your comments directly.

“I wont let a single patronising idiot do that to me without a fight.”

This whole manliness conversation has succeeded because no one resorted to that kind of name calling. I can live with it, but it would be a shame if it wouldn’t be possible for the thread as a whole to defy the laws of the internets a little longer in this respect.

I have done nothing but attempt to understand your point of view. You’re right that it often eludes me. But it also eludes me how you construe several detailed replies engaging your position as “contempt” for your opinion.

At no point have you been engaging my position. You have made detailed replies to a position I have repeatedly explained that I don’t have, and continued to present this strawman position as mine, even on other threads. Being sexually attracted to people, and respecting them as people, are two different things. If you don’t get that, stop trying to sound like you get it, and more importantly, respect it when I tell you that you’re misrepresenting me. You don’t get to have both, either you think you understand me – in which case you’re responsible for whatever reply you make, or you don’t – in which case you’ll have to take my word for what I’m not saying.

“Being sexually attracted to people, and respecting them as people, are two different things.”

Yes.

I have repeatedly said your position is completely valid to the extent that it merely describes that fact and doesn’t sound like policing desire. I even accepted your points about how certain cultural discourses about body shapes are more hurtful to women than to men. Yes, you have repeatedly *said* that you’re not trying to police desire, only to then reiterate positions that, in my perception, contradict that point – which is why I get the feeling that you’re trying to have your argumentative cake and eat it, too. Which, in turn, is why I get the feeling that your asking for empathy without reciprocating.

English is not my native language, and from what you said I gather it isn’t yours either. So maybe this is a language thing, I don’t know.

Yes, you have repeatedly *said* that you’re not trying to police desire, only to then reiterate positions that, in my perception, contradict that point

Then point them out, don’t insinuate that I’m liar on a completely different thread. And so far you haven’t even directly said I was trying to police desire, you have said that if women feel badly treated by men who aren’t sexually attracted to them, what they really want is for said men to be sexually attracted to them.

“And so far you haven’t even directly said I was trying to police desire, you have said that if women feel badly treated by men who aren’t sexually attracted to them, what they really want is for said men to be sexually attracted to them.”

which makes me wonder if you really read my replies to your comments. We’ve talked about the scaling problem –

“What I’m not sure about is whether it’s possible to come up with an “objectified” measure of the “neutral” treatment you’d like, because whatever perception you will have of the way others treat you it will be inevitably be filtered by your current beliefs, interpretation schemes and confirmation bias. Maybe what you consider as the “failed sex object” treatment is seen as neutral/baseline nice behaviour by most other people. It’s really a scaling problem. You’re suggesting an ordinal scale but the behaviour probably can only be measured nominally.”

– and all you replied was that you believe your perception (that men treat women they don’t want to have sex with as lesser humans) is the correct one. You’re asking for consideration of your subjective position as the baseline for interaction even though other people may see their bahviour as completly appropriate and respectful of your humanity, even of your (or any “failed sexual object’s”, as you called the women you’re referencing) sexual persona. You’re asking people to put themselves in their shoes and through their eyes.

To me, asking for that kind of consideration doesn’t go together well with the tone and seeming lack of consideration I feel you display above with respect to the six packs, and have displayed, more generally, with respect to male positions in the other thread. It feels unfair and disrespectful when contrasted with your requests for respect of your own humanity. Which is what I said in the comment that got to you: “…there really seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the empathy you seem to require and the empathy you’re willing to give.”

Apart from that, if you recall, in my last reply to you in the other thread I suggested that you may have addressed what I consider to be the “essence” of masculinity. So there definitely is some common ground.

To me, asking for that kind of consideration doesn’t go together well with the tone and seeming lack of consideration I feel you display above with respect to the six packs

I had to ask my boyfriend what was so offensive about the six-pack remark, but he couldn’t answer me. Seriously, what does sexual preferences have to do with respect? I think an athletic body will generally be more attractive than average, and that attraction is independent of where people got those bodies. If you want consideration, you have to give some sort of explanation for your viewpoint, not just quoting something as inconsiderate.

I have sexual preferences. I don’t pretend they’re always moral. I try not to let those preferences colour my perception of people in a non-sexual context, though I acknowledge that there’s always a risk of it happening. I don’t delude myself into thinking I always deserve the sexual attention I get, or that the guys who get my sexual attention are always deserving of. But I’m not apologising for it either.

Whoa! OK, firstly, I’ve never banned anyone and I don’t plan to start. I suppose there are situations where it could become necessary but I don’t think this is one of them.

I know I’ve not been around much lately, but I will say that although I sometimes find Sam’s perspective challenging I have never found him to be insulting or aggressive in these conversations (in fact I see his online behavior as a really good model) and I’ve drawn a profound measure of insight from his comments. I know others have, too — a number of people cite him as a favorite commenter here.

For AB — I really appreciate your presence here and you’ve definitely articulated some stuff I’ve thought myself in the past (and it’s sort of fun to not be the only feminist in the manliness conversations :P). I hope you stick around, but I understand the frustration of being dog-piled. I’m sorry I haven’t been here to parse out feminist positions more; maybe then you’d feel more supported during this discussion. At the same time, I’d rather not see conversation get reduced to the level of “patronizing idiot” type insults.

the quote taken out of the context isn’t problematic. I only think it becomes problematic because you yourself keep talking about appropriate and inappropriate behaviour and (above) how you think that “unattractive men have decided they deserve more sex and women should understand and give it to them”. To which your (correct) reply is that men cannot define what women should want. But with respect to whatever specific behaviour you deem respectful to “failed female sexual objects” you are doing the exact same thing – you’re taking your definition and don’t consider that other people may consider their behaviour quite respectful and further requests as unjustified and entitled.

It’s not that attraction and respect cannot be separated conceptually, as I have repeatedly said, it’s the structure of the arguments that is very similar. And what you consider unethical in one case (when nice guys are complaining about female rejections it’s entitlement), you’re requesting in the other (when it’s about your perception of women being treated as “lesser humans” if they aren’t men or at least attractive).

I’m sorry if I can’t make my point more clearly, but to me the similarity of the argument is apparent, hence my criticism about the unequal treatment.

I’m done with you Sam. Please stop responding to any of my posts. I know you’re going to get worried that I don’t receive my daily dose of harassment, but you should be aware right now (if your ability to perceive what’s going on isn’t as limited as your ability to comprehend my posts, or your ability to respect my own word for what I’m trying to say) that people are already dog-piling on me because I’m the only one representing the view I do, and one of the few women to post at all.

Talking to you has nearly succeeded in making me stop trying to express that viewpoint (it is the reason I’ve taken a break posting here recently, and it probably will be the reason if I stop again after this), but I wont let a single patronising idiot do that to me without a fight. So honestly, if you keep it up you’ll probably succeed in getting me banned, because I can’t act civilised when faced with this amount of patronisation, contempt, and underhanded accusations of lying, so I’m mainly posting this to make sure the good (and not so good) people here don’t misunderstand and think I have a problem with them.

Because my issue is with you, and your consistent lack of respect for my right to have my opinion…

Huh. I wandered off for a while, thinking that I was perhaps mistaken about whether AB’s here in good faith or not, and that if I left her alone she’d cool off a bit.
I see my original assessment was correct, though, more’s the pity.

But just look at all of that. Damn. The whining, the lying, the whining about being caught lying… just wow.

Which stuff? The tons of time she spent trying to tell us that Hugh Ristik isn’t participating in good faith? The time she spent policing her definitions of feminist and antifeminist? Or the time spent trying to police other people’s desires? (Or the time spent flipping her shit when Sam mentioned the inconsistency?)

I’m somewhat curious which of these things you’ve been thinking. My personal favorite is the insistence that it’s unfair for a man to act as though he’s not attracted to a woman, but that it’s hideously oppressive for a man to complain when women act as though they’re not attracted to him. That’s sort of a broad category, so I’ll narrow it down to the time she insisted that she should be treated like men treat other men, and then whined when that happened (note: when a man complains about people being mean to him, it gets called “whining.” Especially when nobody–least of all Sam–was being mean to him. So, in accordance with AB’s stated wishes, I’ll treat AB the way I’d treat a man, from here on out.)

Motley, you freely admit to being an asshole, don’t you? I frequently draw insight from what you say, but simultaneously I’ve had to occasionally express frustration at the way you interact with people here.

I have felt represented by a number of points AB has made, and whenever I comment more substantively, I’m sure I’ll highlight some things on which we agree. And frankly, I admire her for sticking with a conversation that has clearly been a bit of a trial for her. It’s become clear that a lot of the manliness & feminism threads here are at the very least perceived as difficult environments by many actual feminists, if not hostile environments. I’m not surprised that when a female feminist chooses to interact, without sharing the history that I’ve built up with most of the commenters on these threads, she’ll have a number of angry and frustrated moments. I tend to feel like we’re all learning pretty well from each other on these threads, but that rate of learning might inevitably be accompanied by frustration, not sure.

I want to reiterate (from the other thread) my appreciation for AB’s participation as well.

(and it’s sort of fun to not be the only feminist in the manliness conversations :P).

Ha ha. I’ve strongly suspected before that it probably sucks for you at times, being the lone defender of a position that everyone else in the thread (myself included) is railing on. And my respect for you is significant for that (and other) reason(s).

I think having another feminist in the thread is, indeed, a positive balancing force.

I also think the reason that thread is so successful (and remarkable) is because of the assumptions of good faith and the maintained mutual respect even in the face of (sometimes very strong and ingrained) disagreement. I think these topics are often very emotionally involved/invested for many of us (certainly they are for me).

But with respect to whatever specific behaviour you deem respectful to “failed female sexual objects” you are doing the exact same thing – you’re taking your definition and don’t consider that other people may consider their behaviour quite respectful and further requests as unjustified and entitled.

I refer to ways in which men and women are actually treated (statistically) different. That men tend to avoid stories with female protagonists in, that men (and women, but not to the same degree) are primarily prejudged toward fat women, that a man interrupting a woman is deemed more socially acceptable than the reverse, that the majority of people (men more than women) still have various patriarchal prejudices against women, that the same CV is received more favourably with a male name than a female name, etc.

Some of these statistics/observations might be inaccurate, and there might be (probably is) some prejudices going the other way, and I welcome people to point out if/when that happens, but the unsupported assumption here that women are just treated straight up better than men is downright insulting, as is the idea that women who don’t feel treated well are automatically in the wrong and really want men to be attracted to them, or at least to treat them that way.

It’s not that attraction and respect cannot be separated conceptually, as I have repeatedly said, it’s the structure of the arguments that is very similar.

But the cases are barely even the slightest bit related. If I said I would never listen to what a man has to say (or assume he had anything valid to say to me), wouldn’t want to work with a man, wouldn’t want a man for my friend, wouldn’t want to deal with anything relating to a man’s thoughts or feelings, etc., etc., I would, baring certain circumstances, either be considered a jerk or a sexist (depending on whether I treated women any better), but if I said I never wanted to flirt with a man, date a man, or have any sexual encounters with men, people who told me otherwise would be sexually shaming me, by denying me the right to be homosexual/asexual.

You can’t expect people to treat others evenly in regards to sex. If a group of teenage boys and girls hated each other, few people would have any compulsions against having them work together, talk to each other, go into therapy etc., to attempt to make them understand and appreciate each other. But if they had no sexual interest in each other, I doubt anyone would force them to date, make out, have sex, or anything like that, because not only is it wrong, it’s also inefficient (at least I haven’t heard that any of the attempts to rape lesbians straight ever succeeded).

So yes, I expect something different in regards to sex and other social functions. I know I can get over a lot of my prejudices and dislikes if I really try, but I also know that really trying in regards to sex have never worked, quite the contrary. Not to mention that most women already discriminate heavily against other women in favour of men (we call those ‘heterosexuals’), so it’s hard to see where the sexism against men come in.

For AB — I really appreciate your presence here and you’ve definitely articulated some stuff I’ve thought myself in the past (and it’s sort of fun to not be the only feminist in the manliness conversations :P). I hope you stick around, but I understand the frustration of being dog-piled.

I actually don’t mind the dog-piling that much. Well, except the part about FC, which also illustrates perfectly the problems with being the only person representing a certain view. Either people are going to treat to you like you’re the one who both started and continued it, simply because you’re the most prolific poster, and/or you’re going to be held to a higher standard and have your posts scrutinised more out of context, so that “Your side does this too” becomes “Your side is doing this and it’s bad”.

But other than that, I don’t really have much of a problem with it. It’s still better than being represented by people you really don’t want to be represented by. What I mind is people saying “I totally respect your point of view that outside the context of sexual attraction, men are often that very fond of/interested in women compared to other men. Now in regards to your claim that men should treat women as if they were sexually interested in them…..”.

I would rather have honest disagreement than that. I don’t have much use for people telling me they respect my viewpoint and find it valid, effectively ending the discussion and robbing me of any opportunity to explain/defend myself and my point of view (because they already understand and respect it), only to then turn around and make my viewpoint into something it’s not.

And my claim is that many men (like you) want to define what’s good for women for them. You decide that some men are deserving of a good fuck from attractive women, and some are not, and then you expect women to reward the men you find deserving

Mind-reading is an amazing skill :) You’re putting words in my mouth, saying what my motivations are and of an entire group of men (in which you put me).

You decide that some men are deserving of a good fuck from attractive women, and some are not

When have I ever brought up sex. You completely invented this and put it in my mouth. You’re diverting the discussion by inserting non-sequitors.

You decide that some men are deserving of a good fuck from attractive women, and some are not

When has sex ever been brought up by me? Ever? The discussion was basic human treatment.

Replace “man” and “woman” in this discussion with “black person” and “white person”.

If a black person walks up to a white person and says “good day”, trying to befriend them, and the white person scoffs, rolls their eyes and turns their back on the black person -> What do we call this? We call it racism. The white person might come up with all kinds of excuses like “they looked weird” or “they had threatening eyes”, or “they looked like they wanted to mug me”. –> Aren’t all these presuppositions racism?

Replace “He wanted to mug me” with “He wanted to fuck me” as a mind-reading, and we have what what most women come up with as an excuse for misandry.

So misogyny is women’s own fault for failing to fuck the right men. You’re right, Good Men like you are so unfairly labelled creeps (and if this board had a rolleyes smiley I would have inserted that now).

You’re pretty obsessed with sex I see? There was no discussion of sex… ever.

What the guys who try to pick women up in bars, only to become (even more) misogynistic when they’re rejected, because they think “I’m really nice inside, I deserve to have women regard me favourably”, is the equivalent of them walking onto a football stadium with the attitude “I have a really good singing voice, I deserve to score”, and then get insulted when they’re left out of the game.

You keep changing the topic. Men don’t become misogynistic because they’re rejected, but because they’re unfairly labeled and mistreated.

Turn to the black/white example. If a black person walks up to a white person and says good-day, is this entitlement? Is the black person “selfish” for daring to feel resentment and be focused on how whit people treat him?

What the guys who try to pick women up in bars, only to become (even more) misogynistic when they’re rejected, because they think “I’m really nice inside, I deserve to have women regard me favourably”, is the equivalent of them walking onto a football stadium with the attitude “I have a really good singing voice, I deserve to score”, and then get insulted when they’re left out of the game.

You keep changing the subject and inserting words in my mouth. I have never ever mentioned scoring or sex. We’re talking basic human respect and being treated like a human being… “Innocent until proven guilty”.

Treating any man like a potential rapist, stalker or pervert is the equivalent of treating every black person as a potential criminal, and that’s pure racism.

You seem to be so caught up in what men deserve that you completely neglect what women deserve. Perhaps women deserve guys who don’t freak them out, perhaps women at bars who’re looking to hook up deserve guys with good hook-up skills

Except nobody was discussing sex. You turned it into a discussion on sex and hooking up.

Of course a woman has every right to reject a man who isn’t skilled sexually (duh!)… that’s a strawman. We’re talking about basic human communication, the 10 levels preceding flirting.

To get back to the racism example. Let’s say a white person treats black people poorly. We go to the white person and ask him “so why do you treat all black people like criminals?!”… And the white person responds “Why are you so obsessed with what they need! I don’t owe them a job just coz they showed up!!!! I’m not hiring them!”…

Well wait, that’s a complete reversal. We were asking you why you treat black people like crap and being a racist and treating them as being less-human.

We’re not asking you why you didn’t hire them.

Let’s take the analogy further:

Let’s go with your subject “guys trying to get laid”. Let’s indulge in that topic then… The equivalent in my racism analogy would be a black person trying to get a job with a white employer.

The black person tries to get the job. The white person rolls their eyes, refuses to even interview the black person, and then makes sounds imitating a monkey, while turning to the other white people going “can you believe it tried to get a job with us HAHAHAHAH!!??!?!”

You then go to this racist and ask him “why were you being such a racist to the black man applying”… And they respond “Well I don’t owe them a job!!! You’re obsessed with what they need. What about me! I need qualified employees!!”.

This is exactly what you did above when you justified women treating men that don’t qualify like crap. How is it different than racism?

Feminism is driven by female hypergamy; i.e. the desire by all women to mate with only the upper 20% men who have high social market value, and to simultaneously use the rest as a free support system.
.
The truth that women won’t tell you is that any male who has low status (in her eyes) is a creepy misogynist (regardlesss of how nice he actually is) and any male who has higher status (in her eyes) regardless of how actually misogynist he may be is in fact one of the “good men” that all of the women want. This is why alphas can get away with anything, while even the nicest of non-alpha guys is perceived to be a misogynist. Low status creates sociosexual pain for women, therefore men with low status who seek sex with women (and thus seek to impart their “icky” low status upon women) are “harming” such women. IOW, only non-alpha males can be creeps, rapists, misogynists, harassers etc – whereas alpha males can do whatever they wish; such men have a “permanent sexual consent form” from women.

1) Feminism is about equal rights and access to necessary services, not “female hypergamy”. If you ever read any feminist blogs then you would know this. Feminist blogs don’t talk about how to fuck macho men, they talk about getting equal pay for equal work and making sure we can get abortions if we need to without dying. Oh, and also not being raped. It would be awesome if women weren’t raped. Those feminists, with our evil we’d-like-to-not-be-raped agenda!

2) Plenty of so-called non-alpha-males have girlfriends, get laid, etc. Alphas do not “get away with anything” and when they do get away with shit, it’s certainly not because of feminism. Feminism, in case you hadn’t noticed, is consistently calling out “alpha” assholes like Charlie Sheen who abuse their partners, and feminism is consistently getting ignored.

3) Your pain at being a so-called “beta male” without a girlfriend might be eased if you worked to become a nicer person who can talk to people, with real interests and contributions to the world other than being an anti-feminist asshole.

Based on the variety of people I have seen get called “anti-feminist” in feminist spaces, I am pretty sure that being anti-feminist does not automatically make someone an asshole, any more than being feminist automatically makes someone not an asshole.

But “anti-feminist” and “asshole” as unlinked descriptions do, indeed, seem to be fair characterizations in this case.

IOW, only non-alpha males can be creeps, rapists, misogynists, harassers etc – whereas alpha males can do whatever they wish; such men have a “permanent sexual consent form” from women.

Boo-hoo-cachoo. Poor wittle feminist girlies can’t handle the truth. You can hide in your “safe spaces” all you want but reality will eventually catch up with you.
.
Fact is, women are hardwired to give most of the sex/reproduction to the top 20% of men in the sociosexual hierarchy. This is why alphas can sleep with tons of women for “free” while joe beta has to pay for dates and deal with feministic rules just to get some.
.
Once all men know the truth of female hypergamy your false reality will come crashing down on you, since you will no longer be able to use the beta masses as a collective cuckoldry i.e free support system.
.
“Rape culture” = female entitlement to status, resources and relationships with alphas = beta males should never think about no-strings sex (i.e. porn, casual sex, etc.), and the only way betas should ever get sex is through investing all of his time/resources/emotions (via friendship, relationships, marriage, gov’t programs, chivalry, child-support, etc) to compensate the woman for his low status = betas should be slaves to the matriarchy.
.
Sink or swim biatches the tsunami is coming. You want equality? Well you’re about to get it good and hard, lol.

What Alex is trying to say is that he’s a mangina who likes feminists to pee on his face.

Hey, it’s ok if women only want to f-ck alphas, but all men should know about this so they can stop wasting their time and so we can repeal all “rape”, “harrassment” and other “protect women” feminist laws since the reality is that only beta males are going to be charged with such crimes. Also no more feminism. Women don’t respect men who are equal to them, only those who are superior. Patriarchy makes sense when you think abou it. If George Clooney jumped out of a bush and “raped” a woman she would like it and not charge him with rape. Because alphas have a permanent consent form. Only the betas are “rapists”.

Comments on this post reopened. Further comments that I have reason to think are from the MRA script-kiddie who left the three above will be deleted. I’m only leaving those so we can have an example of how deeply messed up and ridiculous some people are.

I think it’s really interesting how certain kinds of conversations overwhelm the possibility of other conversations on the internets.

An interesting post about how it’s uncool to call respectful, nonpressureful statements of male sexual desire “creepy” became… standard internet flamewar number twelve, with PUAs and what women need to do differently and if they did they’d understand and not call men creepy…

That men can’t talk about their sexuality without it getting called creepy is a real problem. Part of it is because the folks who show up to defend men are often pretty creepy themselves. It’s not about Good Guys Who Don’t Get Laid! It’s about changing the social norms governing behavior.

The social narrative is that men always want sex; so anytime men talk about sex, they’re clearly trying to get some from whoever they’re talking to. But women do not want sex. Men are encouraged to use indirect, sneaky approaches because women have to be tricked into sex. Normative male desire inherently pressures the objects of that desire: “I think you’re hot” means “and I want to fuck you”. “I want to fuck you” means “and you have to do something about it.”

So, yeah, a woman can be more careful in recognizing when a man is being respectful and not pressuring her. That’s something we can do. It’s not enough, though, and it’s not going to help Nice Guys TM Who Can’t Get Any. A woman can work on her internalized belief that she owes a response to a man who wants something from her.

A man can learn to express his desire respectfully, without pressure, and without crossing reasonable boundaries. He’s not going to do so if he thinks he has the right to proposition women on the street, though, or if he thinks getting turned down is like racism in hiring practices, or if he believes that a rejection is a judgment of him in some meaningful way.

Until we all deeply understand that a man’s sexual interest is not the woman’s problem, creepiness and false positives are going to keep happening.

Mind-reading is an amazing skill :) You’re putting words in my mouth, saying what my motivations are and of an entire group of men (in which you put me).

When have I ever brought up sex. You completely invented this and put it in my mouth. You’re diverting the discussion by inserting non-sequitors.

When has sex ever been brought up by me? Ever? The discussion was basic human treatment.

First, quoting the same paragraph three times is bad form. Second, this whole discussion is about sex and dating, and when you went on and on about how women were to blame for not initiating more, how many good guys give up and try to shackle their sexuality, and how “To discuss gender issues and not tackle dating is like trying to analyze racism, and never mention skin color”, you seemed to understand that. So what happened?

Replace “man” and “woman” in this discussion with “black person” and “white person”.

Except that we’re talking sex here, even if you (contrary to your previous statements) have decided to pretend otherwise. Sex is discriminatory. I’m almost certain to reject someone for being a woman, or for having a certain age, and that doesn’t make me a sexist or ageist. Certain prejudged attitudes can enhance or lower sexual preferences (racists are probably less likely to want to date members of another race ), but the preferences are not automatically wrong.

If a black person walks up to a white person and says “good day”, trying to befriend them, and the white person scoffs, rolls their eyes and turns their back on the black person -> What do we call this? We call it racism.

No, ‘we’ don’t call it anything. People identifying with the speaker might call the black person friendly and the white person rude, and people identifying with the person doing the rejecting might call the black person rude and the white person justified, and someone who focusses a lot on race might call the white person racist, but there is no unified ‘we’ when it comes to reactions.

I personally identify most with the person turning their back, because I generally don’t like to be approached by strangers. I’ll greet my neighbours and people I know, I’ll be friendly and say things like “good day” to strangers I interact with for a reason (like store clerks), and if someone is in need of assistance I’ll offer it. I do my best to be kind and friendly, because I think I owe it to my surroundings.

But what I don’t owe my surroundings, is entertaining them at a time when I want to be left alone. I don’t feel good putting on a happy face for someone else’s benefit. Nor do I want to provide conversation for them. It doesn’t have to be guys, it can be old ladies in the bus, but I find it extremely rude to expect whoever you choose to approach to talk with you, smile at you, and use their time making you feel good.

You’re pretty obsessed with sex I see? There was no discussion of sex… ever.

Except the part where you complained that men felt their sexuality was evil, complained that alpha-males got hit on by women all the time, while simultaneously complaining that women were lazy and never initiated and therefore couldn’t possibly know how hard it was, the part where the article at the top is a continuation of a post entitled “Why Do We Demonize Men Who Are Honest About Their Sexual Needs?”, and the dozens of comments from guys about the difficulty expressing their sexuality.

You keep changing the topic. Men don’t become misogynistic because they’re rejected, but because they’re unfairly labeled and mistreated.

You changed the topic into how women should initiate (which, in light of your comment about women constantly initiating with the so-called ‘alpha-males’, seem to really mean that women should hit on different guys than the ones they’re most attracted to), and how there were barely any Good Men left, not I.

Turn to the black/white example. If a black person walks up to a white person and says good-day, is this entitlement? Is the black person “selfish” for daring to feel resentment and be focused on how whit people treat him?

Imo, yes, it’s entitlement. He walks into a crowd, picks out a person he wants to have a conversation with, and feel entitled to go over there and get it. It doesn’t matter whether he’s black or white, if everybody did that, the life of people judged to be most interesting to have a conversation with (or in terms of sex, the most conventionally attractive women) would be a living hell, constantly being approached, and constantly having to put on a fake smile and exchange niceties with strangers who felt entitled to it.

Treating any man like a potential rapist, stalker or pervert is the equivalent of treating every black person as a potential criminal, and that’s pure racism.

Treating a black person who follows you in a dark ally as a potential threat is not racist, it’s normal human nervousness. And treating a man who wont respect your boundaries as a potential threat is not sexist, it’s common sense.

Except nobody was discussing sex. You turned it into a discussion on sex and hooking up.

I’d hardly call it ‘nobody’. Your own quotes show that you were among the people most frequently discussing it.

Let’s take the analogy further:

That non-functional analogy according to which women should see gay guys as sexist for not considering them as potential romantic partners. Yes, let’s explore that further.

Let’s go with your subject “guys trying to get laid”. Let’s indulge in that topic then… The equivalent in my racism analogy would be a black person trying to get a job with a white employer.

The black person tries to get the job. The white person rolls their eyes, refuses to even interview the black person, and then makes sounds imitating a monkey, while turning to the other white people going “can you believe it tried to get a job with us HAHAHAHAH!!??!?!”

If a carpenter shows up in a restaurant and wants a job as a cook, it’s completely reasonable to reject them immediately. That’s not to say the carpenter in question couldn’t be a great chef, but a restaurant owner has the right to decide certain applications are just not worth considering, because the chance of the applicant being the best for the job is too slim.

And taking into account that the white employer (i.e. woman) in question is likely to only hire (i.e. date) black people (i.e. men), and that said employer might not even be hiring anybody, because there is no need for an employee (e.g. no interest in a relationship), or because the position is already taken, the analogy just falls flat.

This is exactly what you did above when you justified women treating men that don’t qualify like crap. How is it different than racism?

No one here ever said anyone had the right to to treat anyone else as crap just for not being sexually attractive to them. But there’s a very large difference between not being sexually attractive, and refusing to respect a person’s boundaries and expecting them to provide you with smiles and conversation just for walking up to them.

There’s also a huge difference between telling women that they shouldn’t label someone a creep unless that person engages in legitimately creepy behaviour, and telling women that their experiences with harassment are invalid because (quoting you here) “men don’t harass women”, that they’re lazy, that they’re wrong to be hitting on the men they’re currently hitting on just because those men are allegedly alpha-males, that they don’t know what it’s like to be shy and insecure, and that they’re attracted to sociopaths. All of them claims from you.

The demonizing of heterosexual males who are honest about their sexual needs is not universal or even the same among different classes. I get called a creep/loser for different behaviors based on what part of the country or world I’m in.
In the US, it seems really bad for middle class middle-aged males. Upper class males are too wealthy and/or powerful to be called creeps and it’s assumed that lower class males don’t know any better so they too get a pass.

Being (or pretending to be) an alpha male doesn’t make you immune from being called a creep or a loser. Alpha males experience rejection and get called creeps all the time. The only difference is that it occurs less frequently to them than it does to beta males.

Miette made a good point when he/she wrote that a man can’t learn how to approach women appropriately if he views rejection as some form of meaningful judgement. That’s really the bottom line in all this. Men and women need to stop caring so much about each other’s judgements. Period.

If charlie sheen (the winner) and hugh hefner are called losers and creeps by so many women, why are you offended by the labels? Fine, you don’t get paid or laid as much as them but those two fellas should make it clear to you that you can never win with every woman. The type of approval that you’re seeking simply doesn’t exist.

Men and women need to stop caring so much about each other’s judgements. Period.

No. People should care about each other’s judgments. People should not, for example, rape each other. However, basing one’s self-esteem on other people’s sexual stereotypes is not awesome.

In the US, it seems really bad for middle class middle-aged males. Upper class males are too wealthy and/or powerful to be called creeps and it’s assumed that lower class males don’t know any better so they too get a pass.

Evidence?

Being (or pretending to be) an alpha male doesn’t make you immune from being called a creep or a loser.

I hate the terms “alpha” and “beta” and think they are typically used to police masculinity, shame men and encourage problematic behavior. They are also very unclearly defined. What are your definitions of these terms?

IME, you’re wrong about us lower-class guys getting a pass, and the contention about it being assumed of us simplifies the issue. The assumption can be that we’re creepy by default, but it can just as well be that we’re abusive, or bad-boyish, or more sexually liberated than higher-class folk — any of a number of classist assumptions and stereotypes, depending upon what a person believes, and especially upon what they’re looking for if they happen to be “slumming.”

Sometimes it’s positive, but in a degrading way. Sometimes it’s negative but accepted — or even embraced — for the thrill that someone gets out of believing it, even if it isn’t true, which is equally degrading. But it’s rarely, if ever, something from which we’re excused, simply because people assume that we are that way.

Really, really profound series of articles. I’m exploring the crisis in masculinity myself for a book, and this concisely summarizes a tremendously powerful psychological issue in the minds of modern men. I’m going to ruminate about this and likely post my thoughts on my own blog, but I wanted to hand you serious kudos for your brave stand on this subject. Being a male in this culture means you are a natural sexual suspect under almost any circumstances, which makes it incredibly hard to cultivate either a true sense of masculinity or a developed sense of masculine sexuality. Thanks so much for your words!

[…] male sexuality, I would like to highly recommend Clarisse Thorn’s article entitled “Men Don’t Deserve the Word ‘Creep’“. It addresses the ways in which male sexuality is often made out to be innately predatory. […]

I just read the discussion on the What About Teh Menz blog, and I realised I’ve struggled a lot with this subject lately. When I first read the article (the one here, not on WATM), I went “YES! Of course!”. When I read the comments, I went “OK…… people obviously ascribe a different meaning to this than I do”. And when I talked to people about it, I started to go “Maybe the whole ‘creep’ thing isn’t the most important aspect here”.

One of the things I’ve realised is that as long as the ‘creep’ debate keeps getting hijacked by the “alpha/beta/omega-male/female hypergamy/Nice Guys/Bad Boys/female sexual scarcity/it’s all feminism’s fault/PUA”-crowd (AKA “The world owes me more pussy than I’m currently getting”), I can’t, and wont, take part of it.

I had a discussion about sex and gender with my father, where I mentioned this article. His face lit up as I gave him a recap of what the article said, and he wholeheartedly agreed. As a married middle-aged man, his biggest problem is that he doesn’t feel he can approach women, especially not young ones, without them reading a sexual (i.e. creepy) intention into it. He’s well-adjusted and get along great with women at work, but when it comes to strange women, he doesn’t want to be seen as creepy, he just likes talking to people of all sexes, and he hates how his sex makes women uncomfortable.

But then I told him about the responses, mainly the ones about how women should initiate more (sexually), and give men more chances (sexually), and not immediately reject men they’re not (sexually) interested in, he just shook his head and looked sad. It’s not what he wants, and it’s not even something he thinks women should give. I think there’s a continuum of problems with the word ‘creep’, with my father’s grievance being “Please don’t assume I approach you because I want your pussy”, and the demand of many guys here being “Don’t ever make a guy who’s interested in your pussy feel bad”, and Clarisse’s being somewhere in the middle.

I know my father is not representative of the average man here (then again, most men are married at some point in their life, so perhaps he’s actually more representative of men than the guys who hang around in bars looking for sex), but his concerns are not unique. For younger guys, the sentence might instead be “Please don’t assume that I don’t care about you and wont respect your boundaries just because I’m interested in your pussy, and please don’t assume I think you owe me something when I approach you”.

I thought an article like this could be used to help these guys, but as long as the reactions here are the opposite: “You’re so right Clarisse, women owe it to men to never reject them immediately just because they feel creeped out”, that’s obviously not the case. I did learn a lot from it, mainly that as long as it is legitimate for men to try to guilt-trip women into sex, women will keep being suspicious of them (and not without cause). I feel sorry for the men it affects, but in my mind, ‘no’ will always trump ‘yes’, and protecting yourself from unwanted advances will always take precedence over making the person doing the advancing feel good.

AB, that’s actually a pretty good summary of where I’m at. When I read this article over now, I feel angry at myself for how I wrote it. No one else had written anything quite like it (as far as I know), and I was struggling to express a pattern that I still think is important, so I try to cut myself slack. But the way these points have been co-opted just makes me feel tired, cynical and depressed about the whole debate … and it puts me on a hair trigger whenever any guy mentions these issues, because I’m just waiting for his next sentence to be something like “And this just goes to show how feminism has ruined everything” … or, worse, “And this really demonstrates why women shouldn’t be allowed to set boundaries.”

[…] tightrope of acceptability. One step off the wire and you tumble into the realm of perversion. As feminist blogger Clarisse Thorn noted last year, any man who hits on a woman and gets it wrong risks being branded a “creep” […]

[…] BDSM; she’s perhaps most famous around the people-who-talk-about-men circles for her post on creep-shaming. She is also impressively well-liked. Seriously, that lady. I have no idea what magic she uses to […]

About Clarisse

On the other hand, I also wrote a different book about the subculture of men who trade tips on how to seduce and manipulate women:

I give great lectures on my favorite topics. I've spoken at a huge variety of places — academic institutions like the University of Chicago; new media conventions like South By Southwest; museums like the Museum of Sex; and lots of others.

I established myself by creating this blog. I don't update the blog much anymore, but you can still read my archives. My best writing is available in my books, anyway.

I've lived in Swaziland, Greece, Chicago, and a lot of other places. I've worked in game design, public health, bookstores, and digital journalism. Now I live in San Francisco; I make my living as a media strategist, editor, and writer.